United States of America v. J. Jesus Vega-Arroyo

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
J. JESUS VEGA-ARROYO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50482
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-07029-WQH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
J. Jesus Vega-Arroyo appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the consecutive eight-month sentence imposed upon revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 31 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-50482 2
Vega-Arroyo contends that the district court plainly erred by failing to
discuss the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors. The district court did not err,
because it was not required to “tick off” all of the relevant sentencing factors, see
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and the record
reflects that the court considered the relevant section 3583(e) sentencing factors.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
Vega-Arroyo also contends that the district court plainly erred by punishing
him for the criminal conduct that resulted in the revocation of his supervised
release. The record reflects that the district court properly sanctioned Vega-Arroyo
for his breach of trust, and not for the criminal conduct underlying the revocation.
See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --