United States of America v. JESSE REGALADO, AKA Chewy

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JESSE REGALADO, AKA Chewy,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-1304
D.C. No. 5:17-cr-00120-AB-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
André Birotte Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jesse Regalado appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
20-month sentence imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Regalado claims that the district court procedurally erred by basing the
* 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
FEB 29 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-1304
sentence on future, anticipated supervised release violations. 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 demonstrates that the district
court properly based the sentence on Regalado’s personal characteristics, breach of
the court’s trust, and criminal history. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (reasons for the sentence may
be inferred from the record as a whole); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058,
1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (primary purpose of revocation sentence is to sanction the
defendant’s breach of the court’s trust). The court’s comments about how
Regalado might perform should he remain on supervised release were made in
response to Regalado’s sentencing arguments and his request that the district court
terminate supervision.
Regalado also contends that the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively
unreasonable. In light of the § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, however, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --