United States of America v. Carlos U. Lobo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CARLOS U. LOBO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50044
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-04127-WQH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018 **
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Carlos U. Lobo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
12-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Lobo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain
adequately why it rejected his mitigating arguments. The district court did not
* 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 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-50044
plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010). The record reflects that the district court considered Lobo’s mitigating
arguments, but concluded that a consecutive sentence was warranted in light of the
need to sanction Lobo’s breach of the district court’s trust and Lobo’s history and
characteristics. This explanation was sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520
F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, Lobo has not shown a
reasonable probability that the sentence would have been different if the district
court had provided further explanation. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d
755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --