United States of America v. Donovan Quentin Delores

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DONOVAN QUENTIN DELORES,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-10191
D.C. No. 4:17-cr-00032-RCC-
BGM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Donovan Quentin Delores appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon his third revocation of supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Delores 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).
FILED
DEC 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-10191
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 sufficiently explained its reasons
for adopting probation’s recommendation to impose the above-Guidelines
sentence, including Delores’s history of noncompliance and his unsuitability for
supervised release. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc). Moreover, contrary to Delores’s contention, the record reflects that the
district court relied on only proper sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e);
United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
Delores also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable
because his violation was merely “technical.” The district court did not abuse its
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the
totality of the circumstances, including Delores’s repeated violations of the court’s
trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1063.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --