United States of America v. Mario Anguiano-Silva

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARIO ANGUIANO-SILVA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50305
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04850-WQH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Mario Anguiano-Silva appeals from the 14-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
FILED
MAY 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-50305 2
Anguiano-Silva contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
to address his argument that a lower sentence was justified in light of the length of
the sentence imposed for his new 8 U.S.C. § 1326 violation. We review for plain
error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and find none. The district court explained that a lower sentence would not
adequately reflect the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors or appropriately
sanction Anguiano-Silva for his breach of the court’s trust.
Anguiano-Silva also contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Anguiano-
Silva’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In light of the
totality of the circumstances and the section 3583(e) sentencing factors, the below-
Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --