United States of America v. Rafael Cervantes

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RAFAEL CERVANTES,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-30245
D.C. No. 2:04-cr-00215-EFS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Cervantes appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cervantes contends that the district court lacked authority to revoke
* 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).
FILED
AUG 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-30245
supervised release and impose sentence after the date on which his term of
supervision expired. As he concedes, however, the district court had such
authority because it had issued a valid warrant during Cervantes’s term of
supervision based on his violation of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i);
United States v. Ahmadzai, 723 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2013). Furthermore,
there is no basis on this record to conclude that the delay between the expiration of
supervision and the revocation hearing was not reasonably necessary. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(i).
Cervantes also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to explain its decision to run the instant revocation sentence and the sentence for
his new criminal conviction consecutively. 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 district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing
the consecutive sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc) (“The district court need not tick off each of the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.”); see also U.S.S.G.
§ 7B1.3(f). Moreover, the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
Cervantes’s criminal history. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --