United States v. Tomas Peraza Jr. ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-50198
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:16-cr-02633-LAB-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TOMAS PERAZA, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Tomas Peraza, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Peraza contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
*
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).
consider the statutory sentencing factors and his arguments regarding his mental
health, and by failing to 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 the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and Peraza’s arguments for
a lower sentence, and thoroughly explained its determination that the within-
Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of Peraza’s significant breach of the
court’s trust. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc); see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007)
(primary purpose of revocation sentence is to sanction the defendant’s breach of
the court’s trust). Moreover, contrary to Peraza’s contention, the sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including Peraza’s criminal history. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-50198