United States of America v. Ramon Ramos-Solano

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
RAMON RAMOS-SOLANO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10439
D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00191-GEB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Ramos-Solano appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
FILED
JUL 03 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-10439 2
Ramos-Solano first contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to explain the reasons for the sentence or why it rejected his mitigating
arguments. The record reflects that the district court reviewed all of the evidence
submitted, listened to the mitigating arguments, and considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors as limited by section 3583. Nothing more was required here. See
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).
Ramos-Solano also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because it was greater than necessary to meet the goals of rehabilitation. The
record reflects that the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of Ramos-
Solano’s lengthy criminal history, failure to be deterred, and breach of trust. 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 --