United States v. Pablo Carrillo, Jr. , 703 F. App'x 533 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10535
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:11-cr-02934-RCC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PABLO CARRILLO, Jr.,
a.k.a. Pablo Carillo,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Pablo Carrillo, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 24-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).
Carrillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider his arguments, specify the statutory sentencing factors it relied upon, and
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 Carrillo’s arguments
and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, and sufficiently
explained its determination that the statutory maximum sentence was warranted.
See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Contrary
to Carrillo’s argument, there is no indication in the record that the court imposed
the sentence to punish Carrillo for his new offense. See United States v. Simtob,
485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court may not impose revocation
sentence to punish criminal conduct underlying the revocation).
Carrillo also 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 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Carrillo’s history
of smuggling illegal aliens, failure to be deterred by prior prison terms, and poor
performance while on supervised release. See id.; Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1062-63.
AFFRIMED.
2 16-10535