United States of America v. Abel Martin Carreon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ABEL MARTIN CARREON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-10103
D.C. No.
1:13-cr-00278-DAD-BAM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Abel Martin Carreon appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his
supervised release and imposing a one-month sentence and 35-month term of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Carreon first contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish that
* 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
JAN 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-10103
his failure to make restitution payments was willful. In evaluating a challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a supervised release revocation, we view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and ask whether “any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a violation by a
preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th
Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). The evidence presented at the revocation
hearing, including testimony from Carreon’s probation officers, was sufficient to
support the district court’s finding that Carreon’s actions were willful.
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking supervised
release. See United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2008).
Carreon also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because he was otherwise compliant with the terms of his supervision and his
violation was allegedly minor. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence and supervised release
term are substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and
the totality of the circumstances, including Carreon’s breach of the court’s trust.
See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief. See
United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --