United States of America v. Gustavo Alberto Aburto- Laurel

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).
NC/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GUSTAVO ALBERTO ABURTO-
LAUREL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50377
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00602-BEN
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Gustavo Alberto Aburto-Laurel appeals from the 24-month sentence
imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NC/Research 09-50377 2
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Aburto-Laurel contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to expressly calculate the applicable range under Chapter 7 of the Sentencing
Guidelines. Reviewing for plain error, see United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d
1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), we reject this contention because Aburto-Laurel has
not shown that his substantial rights were affected by any error. Cf. id. at 1105-06
(concluding that the district court’s failure to calculate the appropriate guideline
range in addition to its reliance on an incorrect criminal history category
calculation constituted plain procedural error that affected the defendant’s
substantial rights).
Aburto-Laurel also contends that the sentence, which is at the statutory
maximum, is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court
imposed the sentence based upon the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), including
the need for deterrence. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is
not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1061, 1063 (9th Cir.
2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --