United States of America v. Alfredo Martinez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALFREDO MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-10274
D.C. No. 1:20-cr-00072-ADA-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Ana de Alba, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 9-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Martinez’s supervised release was revoked following his admission to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
APR 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-10274
unauthorized travel to Florida. He contends that the district court procedurally
erred by imposing the sentence based on clearly erroneous facts regarding a
separate trip to Mexico. Although evidence presented after the sentencing hearing
showed that the court was mistaken as to whether Martinez had provided the
requisite documentation regarding the Mexico trip, the court’s error was harmless.
The record shows that the court selected the 9-month sentence based on the
circumstances of Martinez’s unauthorized travel to Florida—the conduct
supporting the revocation—as well as other instances in which Martinez failed to
take responsibility for his actions. On this record, we conclude that the district
court did not “choose [the] sentence based on clearly erroneous facts.” United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Martinez also contends that the district court ignored certain nonfrivolous
mitigating arguments. Because he did not object on this basis below, we review
for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th
Cir. 2010). The district court did not plainly err because, although it did not
address each of Martinez’s mitigating arguments, it considered them,
acknowledged his efforts “to get [his] life back in order,” and sufficiently
explained the sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review. See United States
v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, Martinez’s argument regarding the cumulative effect of the claimed

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-10274
errors is unavailing.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --