United States v. 2020-11-17 | 20-10100 | USA V. OMAR KEY-AYALA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

OMAR KEY-AYALA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-10100

D.C. No. 4:11-cr-01439-DCB-
LCK-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Omar Key-Ayala appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 15-month sentence imposed upon his second revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Key-Ayala contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

*
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

NOV 17 2020

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

2 20-10100
explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there
is none. The record reflects that the district court sufficiently explained its reasons
for the above-Guidelines sentence, including Key-Ayala’s poor performance on
supervision despite receiving a lenient sentence for his underlying offense. See
United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635, 637 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, contrary
to Key-Ayala’s contention, the record reflects that the district court relied on only
proper sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485
F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
Key-Ayala contends that these alleged procedural errors also render his
sentence substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion
by imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the § 3583(e)
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Key-Ayala’s
repeated violations of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Simtob, 485 F.3d
at 1062 (primary purpose of revocation sentence is to sanction defendant’s breach
of the court’s trust).
AFFIRMED.