United States of America v. Misael Manjarrez-Felix

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
MISAEL MANJARREZ-FELIX,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10484
D.C. No. 4:10-cr-02695-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Misael Manjarrez-Felix appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the four-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Manjarrez-Felix contends that the district court erred by ordering his
FILED
OCT 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10484 2
revocation sentence to run consecutively to his sentence for illegal reentry. He
argues that U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) creates a presumption that the court impose a
concurrent sentence when a deportable alien is sentenced for violating supervised
release. We disagree. Section 5D1.1(c) concerns the imposition of a term of
supervised release, not the sentence to be imposed upon revocation. See U.S.S.G.
§ 5D1.1(c) (2011). Contrary to Manjarrez-Felix’s argument, the Guidelines
recommend that the court impose a consecutive sentence for a supervised release
violation. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).
Manjarrez-Felix next contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because it creates unwarranted sentencing disparities. Contrary to his
claim, Manjarrez-Felix is not similarly situated to defendants who are not serving
terms of supervised release. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing Manjarrez-Felix’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)
sentencing factors, the consecutive sentence is substantively reasonable. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --