United States v. Victor Banuelos ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50316
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:16-cr-02651-AJB-1
v.
VICTOR MANUEL BANUELOS, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Victor Manuel Banuelos appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 120-day sentence and 30-month term of supervised release 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).
Banuelos contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
calculate the Guidelines range 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. At the revocation hearing, the district court
referred to the probation office’s report, which contained the Guidelines
calculation, and showed its familiarity with the parties’ sentencing
recommendations. Moreover, the court engaged in an extended discussion with
counsel and the probation officer about Banuelos’s personal history, his history on
supervision and the circumstances giving rise to the supervised release violation,
and how best to rehabilitate him following his release. From this record, the
court’s reasons for imposing the below-Guidelines sentence and 30-month
supervised release term can be inferred. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,
992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Even assuming the district court erred, Banuelos
has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different
sentence absent the errors. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1101-
02 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-50316