United States of America v. Rogelio Acevedo-Becerra

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGELIO ACEVEDO-BECERRA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-50276
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04559-IEG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Rogelio Acevedo-Becerra appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the seven-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Acevedo-Becerra contends that the district court erred by failing to consider
FILED
FEB 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and to respond adequately to his
arguments in mitigation. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The
record reflects that the court considered Acevedo-Becerra’s arguments in
mitigation, and its explanation of the sentence imposed was adequate. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover,
the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. §
3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
Acevedo-Becerra also contends that the imposition of a custodial sentence
upon revocation of supervised release violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.
466 (2000). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v.
Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
13-50276 2

-- 2 of 2 --