United States of America v. Jorge Garcia-Pantoja, a.k.a. Jorge Garcia-Pantoia

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JORGE GARCIA-PANTOJA, a.k.a. Jorge
Garcia-Pantoia,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10237
D.C. No. 4:12-cr-50233-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted January 21, 2014***
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Garcia-Pantoja appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
FILED
JAN 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Fred L. Van Sickle, Senior United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Garcia-Pantoja contends that the district court erred by ordering his
revocation sentence to run consecutively to his sentence for illegal reentry. He
argues that U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) creates a presumption that the court impose a
concurrent sentence when a deportable alien is sentenced for violating supervised
release. We disagree. Section 5D1.1(c) concerns the imposition of a term of
supervised release, not the sentence to be imposed upon revocation. See U.S.S.G.
§ 5D1.1(c) (2011). Contrary to Garcia-Pantoja’s argument, the Guidelines
recommend that the court impose a consecutive sentence for a supervised release
violation. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).
Garcia-Pantoja next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because it creates unwarranted sentencing disparities. Contrary to his claim,
Garcia-Pantoja is not similarly situated to defendants who are not serving terms of
supervised release. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Garcia-Pantoja’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In
light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing
factors, the consecutive sentence is substantively reasonable. See id.
AFFIRMED.
13-10237 2

-- 2 of 2 --