United States of America v. JAIME MORALES-DOMINGUEZ, AKA Jaime Morales-Dominquez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAIME MORALES-DOMINGUEZ, AKA
Jaime Morales-Dominquez,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-10392
D.C. No.
4:16-cr-01054-CKJ-EJM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Morales-Dominguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 15-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Morales-Dominguez argues that the district court procedurally erred by (1)
* 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 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-10392
failing to explain adequately the sentence; (2) failing to consider the parties’
arguments; (2) treating the Guidelines as mandatory; and (3) relying on
impermissible sentencing factors. 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 properly treated the Guidelines
as advisory, considered the parties’ arguments, and sufficiently explained its
reasons for imposing the within-Guidelines sentence to run consecutive to the
sentence imposed for conduct that triggered the revocation. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also U.S.S.G.
§ 7B1.3(f). The record does not support Morales-Dominguez’s claim that the
district court relied on an improper sentencing factor.
Morales-Dominguez also contends that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable in light of the alleged procedural errors. The district court did not
abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
within-Guidelines, consecutive sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --