United States of America v. Victor Manuel Villalobos- Estrada

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
VICTOR MANUEL VILLALOBOS-
ESTRADA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-50208
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00003-BEN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Victor Manuel Villalobos-Estrada appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 12-month prison sentence and two-year term of supervised
release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
OCT 19 2015
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 --

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
First, Villalobos-Estrada argues that the district court failed to consider the
“parsimony principle” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This argument is unpersuasive.
The court’s description of the 12-month sentence as “reasonable” was based on its
analysis of the statutory sentencing factors, which reflect the parsimony principle.
Next, Villalobos-Estrada asserts that the district court erred by basing the
sentence on the costs associated with prosecution. We disagree. Notwithstanding
the court’s passing reference to judicial resources while discussing whether
Villalobos-Estrada could relocate his family to Mexico, the record reflects that the
court based the sentence on the statutory sentencing factors, including the need to
deter.
Finally, Villalobos-Estrada argues that both his prison term and his term of
supervised release are substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse
its discretion in imposing sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). Both the prison term and the period of supervised release are substantively
reasonable in light of the relevant sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances. See id.; United States v. Castro-Verdugo, 750 F.3d 1065, 1072 (9th
Cir. 2014).
AFFIRMED.
15-50208 2

-- 2 of 2 --