Opinion
No. 15-10533
09-19-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCISCO MISAEL AMAYA-PORTILLO, AKA Francisco Amaya-Portillo, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00955-SRB-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2016 San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
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). --------
After Francisco Amaya-Portillo pleaded guilty to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), the district court sentenced him to 18-months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm the sentence.
Amaya-Portillo's sole claim on appeal is that the government breached the plea agreement he had entered into by implicitly arguing for a harsher sentence than the agreement allowed. We disagree. While the government could have recommended the agreed-upon sentence more enthusiastically, it had no obligation to do that. See United States v. Johnson, 187 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, the government recommended the proper sentence, gave reasons to support it, and addressed likely objections. This is all the agreement reasonably demanded.
AFFIRMED.