United States v. Luis Dominguez-Rivera

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 31 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10076 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:04-cr-00221-DCB v. MEMORANDUM * LUIS ANGEL DOMINGUEZ-RIVERA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding ** Submitted December 19, 2012 *** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Luis Angel Dominguez-Rivera appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Dominguez-Rivera contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Dominguez-Rivera first contends that the court punished him twice for violating the terms of supervised release imposed in 2004. This contention is belied by the record. The current 18-month sentence was imposed after Dominguez-Rivera committed a new offense that violated the terms of supervised release imposed in 2009. Dominguez-Rivera also contends that the revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was imposed to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for his 8 U.S.C. § 1326 conviction. In light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, especially Dominguez-Rivera’s breach of the court’s trust, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). To the extent Dominguez-Rivera argues that the maximum term of imprisonment must be reduced under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) by the length of any previous terms of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release, this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Knight, 580 F.3d 933, 937-38 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 12-10076