United States of America v. Arcenio Garcia-Solorio, a.k.a. Pablo Dominguez, a.k.a. Arcenio Solorio

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ARCENIO GARCIA-SOLORIO, a.k.a.
Pablo Dominguez, a.k.a. Arcenio Solorio,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50153
D.C. No. 3:17-cr-07022-BAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Arcenio Garcia-Solorio appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 14-month sentence imposed upon his revocation of supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Garcia-Solorio contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
* 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
MAY 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-50153
to provide an adequate explanation for his sentence. Although a fuller explanation
is probably called for, reviewing for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-
Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), we conclude that Garcia-Solorio
has failed to show that any error affected his substantial rights. See United States
v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Rita v. United States, 551
U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Garcia-Solorio’s contention that the district court imposed
the sentence to punish him more harshly for the underlying offense is unsupported
by the record; if the court had wished to impose a harsher sentence for the new
immigration offense, it could simply have imposed a higher sentence in that case.
Garcia-Solorio also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
The court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). The 14-month term is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
Garcia-Solorio’s history, characteristics, and the need for adequate deterrence. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --