United States of America v. Elias Caballero-Gonzalez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ELIAS CABALLERO-GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50087
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-01579-JM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Elias Caballero-Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 10-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Caballero-Gonzalez contends that the district court procedurally erred by
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-50087
failing to respond to his sentencing arguments and explain the sentence adequately.
We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the
district court considered Caballero-Gonzalez’s arguments and sufficiently
explained its reasons for imposing the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520
F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Furthermore, the record belies
Caballero-Gonzalez’s contention that the district court impermissibly imposed the
custodial sentence in order to promote his rehabilitation in violation of Tapia v.
United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011). Rather, the record reflects that the district
court granted Caballero-Gonzalez’s request to complete residential drug treatment
upon his release from custody, and invited probation to seek a sentence
modification if it appeared that Caballero-Gonzalez’s admission to the facility
would be delayed.
Caballero-Gonzalez next contends that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The significantly below-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --