United States of America v. Jesus Octavio Sandoval- Talavera

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
JESUS OCTAVIO SANDOVAL-
TALAVERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10599
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01333-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Octavio Sandoval-Talavera appeals from the 24-month sentence
imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
SEP 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-10599 2
Sandoval-Talavera first contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to explain adequately the basis for imposing a consecutive sentence. The
record reflects that the court considered the parties’ arguments and adequately
explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
Sandoval-Talavera next contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. In light of Sandoval-Talavera’s lengthy criminal history, failure to
be deterred, and breach of trust, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (at
a revocation sentencing, a district court may sanction the defendant for his breach
of trust).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --