United States of America v. Henry Edward Murillo

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HENRY EDWARD MURILLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50261
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00117-JLS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Henry Edward Murillo appeals from the 30-month term of supervised
release imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-50261 2
Murillo contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it
is greater than necessary, and the district court relied on impermissible factors in its
sentencing decision. Taken in context, the district court’s reference to
“punishment” concerned sanctions for Murillo’s supervised release violation, not
for the underlying state crime. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063
(9th Cir. 2007). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) sentencing factors, Murillo’s 30-month term of supervised release,
which is below the statutory maximum, is substantively reasonable. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --