United States of America v. Jose Luis Castillo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSE LUIS CASTILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50278
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-05124-BEN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Castillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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
APR 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-50278
Castillo contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The high-end sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,
including Castillo’s multiple violations of supervised release. See Gall, 552 U.S.
at 51. Moreover, contrary to Castillo’s contention, the record reflects that the
district court considered his mitigating arguments and sufficiently explained the
sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
To the extent that Castillo claims that the district court improperly considered the
entire petition to revoke, rather than solely the admitted allegation, he cannot
establish plain error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir.
2008). His counsel stipulated that the court could consider the entire petition.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --