United States of America v. Jose Pilar Perez-Lopez

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JC/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE PILAR PEREZ-LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50170
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00603-RTB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Pilar Perez-Lopez appeals from the nine-month sentence imposed
following revocation of the supervised release term he was serving following a
guilty-plea conviction to being a deported alien found in the United States. We
FILED
NOV 18 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JC/Research 09-50170 2
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Perez-Lopez contends the district court committed procedural error by:
(1) relying on clearly erroneous facts; (2) imposing a sentence without providing
an explanation sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review; and (3) failing to
consider the revocation factors in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e) and 3553(a). These
contentions are belied by the record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993
(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Perez-Lopez also contends the district court committed procedural error by
failing to calculate the sentencing guidelines range and by ignoring the parsimony
principle. Perez-Lopez has not demonstrated that any error affected his substantial
rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008).
Finally, Perez-Lopez contends the supervised release revocation procedures
set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
(2000). This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental,
445 F.3d 1220, 1224-25 (9th Cir. 2006). We reject Perez-Lopez’s contention that
Huerta-Pimental is no longer good law in light of Cunningham v. California,
549 U.S. 270 (2007). See United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.
2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --