United States of America v. Jose Silvino Ibarra-Murietta, aka Jose Silvino Ortiz-Castaneda

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE SILVINO IBARRA-MURIETTA,
aka Jose Silvino Ortiz-Castaneda,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50265
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-01170-L-1
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE SILVINO IBARRA-MURIETTA,
aka Jose Silvino Ortiz-Castaneda,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50266
D.C. No. 3:11-cr-02653-WQH-1
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
AUG 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Submitted August 1, 2013 **
Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Silvino Ibarra-Murietta appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
assault on a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111; and being a deported
alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He also appeals
from the 24-month sentence imposed following revocation of his supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ibarra’s 87-month
sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 24-month
sentence upon revocation of supervised release. See id. Contrary to Ibarra’s
contention, the sentence is substantively reasonable and the district court properly
considered Ibarra’s prior violent crimes in assessing the need to protect the public
from further crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --