United States of America v. Pedro De La Rosa-Soto, a.k.a. Guadalupe Delarosa, a.k.a. Emmanuel Infante Delarosa

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PEDRO DE LA ROSA-SOTO, a.k.a.
Guadalupe Delarosa, a.k.a. Emmanuel
Infante Delarosa,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50246
D.C. No. 3:11-cr-00251-GT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gordon Thompson, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Pedro De La Rosa-Soto appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
APR 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

De La Rosa-Soto contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to calculate the applicable Guidelines range. It is plain error for a district
court to fail to calculate the Guidelines range. See United States v. Hammons, 558
F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, the record reflects that the district
court was aware of the undisputed Guidelines range. Accordingly, any error by the
district court was harmless and did not affect De La Rosa-Soto’s substantial rights.
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a).
De La Rosa-Soto also contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable in light of victimless nature of his supervised release violation. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing De La Rosa-Soto’s sentence.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence at the top end of
the undisputed Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall,
552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.
2007) (“A violator who, after committing an offense and being placed on
supervised release for that offense, again commits a similar offense is not only
more likely to continue on that path, but also has demonstrated to the court that the
violator has little respect for its command.”).
AFFIRMED.
14-50246 2

-- 2 of 2 --