United States v. Jose Pita-Mota , 476 F. App'x 123 ( 2012 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10515 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:06-cr-01299-GMS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSE LUIS PITA-MOTA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 19, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Jose Luis Pita-Mota appeals the district court’s revocation of his
supervised release and the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. Reviewing for
*
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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
plain error the adequacy of the district court’s explanation at sentencing, United
States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), we affirm.
Even assuming that the district court erred by failing to give a more detailed
explanation of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors and by failing to respond
specifically to Defendant’s argument concerning a concurrent sentence, Defendant
has not "demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have received a
different sentence" had the district court not erred. United States v. Waknine, 543
F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court’s errors here, if any, are a much
less "serious departure from established procedures" than were the district court’s
errors in Waknine, in which we held that prejudice was a "close question." Id.Unlike in Waknine and Hammons, an explanation for the sentence can be surmised
from the district court’s discussion of the § 3553(a) factors earlier in the same
sentencing hearing. The district court imposed a sentence at the bottom end of the
correctly calculated Guidelines range. In these circumstances, we find no
reasonable probability that Defendant would have received a different sentence had
the district court not erred.
AFFIRMED.
2