United States of America v. Raymond Militante Rebaya

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
RAYMOND MILITANTE REBAYA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 09-50007 & 09-50034
D.C. Nos. 3:08-cr-01831-LAB
3:03-cr-02667-NAJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Raymond Militante Rebaya appeals in No. 09-
50007 from the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for transportation of illegal aliens and aiding and abetting, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
FILED
MAR 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JC/Research 09-50007 & 09-50034 2
§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), and (v)(II), and in No. 09-50034 from the 18-month
consecutive sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
In No. 09-50007, Rebaya contends the district court procedurally erred by
(1) imposing a sentence without properly explaining and considering all of the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and (2) failing to justify and explain why
an above-guidelines sentence was necessary. The record belies this contention.
See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc);
see also id. at 993 (appellate courts are to give due deference to the district court’s
decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance).
In No. 09-50034, Rebaya contends the district court procedurally erred by
failing to provide an explanation for the 18-month sentence imposed following the
revocation of his supervised release. This contention fails because an adequate
explanation may be inferred from the “record as a whole.” See id. at 992.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --