NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-50346
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cr-00977-JLS-1
v.
MARCO JORDAN DUENAS-GARCIA, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Marco Jordan Duenas-Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon his second revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Duenas-Garcia contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
to address his mitigating circumstances, failing to explain the sentence adequately,
and relying on the need to punish the underlying violation conduct. We review for
plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court
considered Duenas-Garcia’s arguments and adequately explained its reasons for
imposing a within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,
992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514,
516 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court need not specifically address each of the
defendant’s arguments to show that it has considered them). Duenas-Garcia has
not shown that, had the court said more, there is a “reasonable probability” he
would have received a different sentence. See United States v. Christensen, 732
F.3d 1094, 1102 (9th Cir. 2013). Finally, the record reflects that the court
considered only permissible sentencing factors and imposed the sentence to
sanction Duenas-Garcia’s breach of the court’s trust. See United States v. Simtob,
485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
Duenas-Garcia also alleges that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
In light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the 18-month sentence. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-50346
United States v. Marco Duenas-Garcia
Combined Opinion