United States v. 2020-04-14 | 19-10268 | USA V. JOSE GARCIA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOSE ANTONIO GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-10268

D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00931-RCC-
LAB-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Jose Antonio Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 6-month custodial sentence and 3-year term of supervised release
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 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-10268
Garcia contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to notify
him clearly that it was rejecting the disposition agreement and failing to give him
an opportunity to withdraw his admission to the supervised release violation after
rejecting the agreement. We review for plain error, see United States v. Dallman,
533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008), and conclude there is none. Garcia does not cite
any authority, other than inapplicable contract principles, to support his
arguments.
1
In any event, the record belies Garcia’s contentions. The record
reflects that the district court made clear to Garcia that it had rejected the
disposition agreement. Moreover, the court permitted Garcia to consult with his
attorney following its rejection of the agreement, and Garcia elected to proceed to
sentencing. Finally, Garcia’s contention that the district court breached the
disposition agreement fails because the district court was not a party to the
agreement. See United States v. Lewis, 979 F.2d 1372, 1375 (9th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.

1
In response to the government’s argument that Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11 does not apply to supervised release revocation proceedings, Garcia
disclaimed any reliance on that rule.