The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
18-10495•United States of America v. JAIME VEGA, AKA Jimmy Johnson
18-10495Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 16, 2019
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAIME VEGA, AKA Jimmy Johnson,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-10495
D.C. No. 1:11-cr-00318-DAD
BAM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Vega appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Vega argues that the district court erred by failing to provide specific
* 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
DEC 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 18-10495
reasons for his above-Guidelines sentence. Because Vega did not raise this
objection in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v.
Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006). The record demonstrates that the
district court imposed the sentence after considering Vega’s history and
characteristics, particularly Vega’s very poor history on supervision. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e). The district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing
the above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Vega next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The 18-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
Vega’s history on supervision. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.