NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50264
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00937-BEN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PEDRO M. CASTILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Pedro M. Castillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 11-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
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).
Castillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider his arguments and the sentencing factors, and by failing to explain the
sentence adequately. 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 Castillo’s arguments and the
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, and sufficiently explained its
determination that a high-end sentence was warranted. See United States v. Carty,
520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Castillo next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The 11-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Castillo’s
multiple breaches of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v.
Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
Finally, Castillo contends that the imposition of a custodial sentence upon
revocation of supervised release violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
(2000). As he concedes, this claim is foreclosed. See United States v. Santana,
526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50264