United States of America v. Harry Orlando-Papias

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HARRY ORLANDO-PAPIAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50241
D.C. No. 3:05-CR-00699-TJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Harry Orlando-Papias appeals from the sentence imposed upon revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Papias contends that the district court procedurally erred by not sufficiently
explaining his sentence and impermissibly relying primarily upon the need to
FILED
JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-50241 2
punish him for the criminal conduct underlying the revocation. These contentions
lack merit because the record reflects that the district court listened to the parties’
arguments and adopted probation’s reasoning, which emphasized Papias’ overall
criminal history, including the fact that Papias had reoffended eight months after
his release from custody. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc); see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).
Papias further asserts that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
the sentence imposed is greater than necessary to further the relevant sentencing
goals set forth under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e). The sentence imposed is
substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --