United States v. Ray Segala ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10259
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:05-cr-00962-CKJ-41
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RAY SEGALA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Ray Segala appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-
month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Segala contends that the district court erred by (1) failing to explain
*
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).
adequately its decision to run the revocation sentence consecutive to the sentence
imposed for his new criminal conviction in state court, and (2) imposing the
sentence in order to punish him for the conduct underlying the revocation. We
review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects
that the district court considered only the proper 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing
factors, including the nature and extent of Segala’s breach of the court’s trust, and
did not impose the sentence solely or primarily to punish Segala for the new
offense. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).
Moreover, the court sufficiently explained the basis for the within-Guidelines
sentence, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc),
and the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e)
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f);
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Segala’s unopposed motions to treat this appeal as timely and for judicial
notice are granted. All other pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-10259