United States of America v. Fernando Vega-Sanchez

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FERNANDO VEGA-SANCHEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50637
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00184-GT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gordon Thompson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Vega-Sanchez appeals from the six-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
FILED
JUL 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50637 2
Vega-Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to: (1) calculate the advisory Guidelines range; (2) meaningfully consider and
address the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e);
and (3) explain the reasons for the sentence imposed. The record reflects that the
district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,
991-95 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 600
F.3d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that there was no plain error where
“the district court listened to [defendant’s] arguments, stated that it had reviewed
the criteria set forth in § 3553(a), and imposed a sentence within the Guidelines
range”).
Vega-Sanchez also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable
in light of his mitigating personal circumstances. The record reflects that the six-
month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the
circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --