United States v. Miguel Gutierrez-Padilla , 615 F. App'x 436 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 01 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50303
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-07038-GT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MIGUEL GUTIERREZ-PADILLA, a.k.a.
Ruben Bahena, a.k.a. Miguel Gutierrez
Padilla, a.k.a. Miguel Padilla Gutierrez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gordon Thompson, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges
Miguel Gutierrez-Padilla appeals from the consecutive 18-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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Gutierrez-Padilla argues that the district court denied him his right of
allocution before sentencing him on his violation of supervised release. The record
belies his claim. During a consolidated hearing, the court invited Gutierrez-Padilla
to speak before imposing sentence on his new conviction for illegal reentry and his
violation of supervised release. Thus, Gutierrez-Padilla was given “an opportunity
to make a statement and present any information in mitigation,” Fed. R. Crim. P.
32.1(b)(2)(E), before sentence was imposed. See United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d
661, 666 (9th Cir. 1998).
Next, Gutierrez-Padilla alleges that the court failed to calculate his
Guidelines range. However, the record shows that the court adopted the correctly-
calculated Guidelines range proposed by the probation officer.
Finally, Gutierrez-Padilla contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Gutierrez-
Padilla’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The low-end
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing
factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50303