United States v. Vicente Zuniga-Torres , 654 F. App'x 265 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 31 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30107
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:14-cr-02031-TOR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
VICENTE ZUNIGA-TORRES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Vicente Zuniga-Torres appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Zuniga-Torres contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
*
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).
to respond to his sentencing arguments and by failing to explain adequately the
sentence and why it was imposed to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for
Zuniga-Torres’s new criminal conviction. We review for plain error, see United
States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and find none. The record
reflects that the district court considered Zuniga-Torres’s arguments and
sufficiently explained its reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520
F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Zuniga-Torres next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
in light of the alleged procedural errors and the mitigating circumstances. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Zuniga-Torres’s sentence.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing
factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Zuniga-Torres’s
immigration history and his significant breach of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552
U.S. at 51; see also Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1182 (breach of trust is an appropriate
consideration at a revocation sentencing).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-30107