Opinion
21-10340
08-24-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUEL FELICIANO BORREGO, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 4:07-cr-00513-JGZ-JR-1
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Manuel Feliciano Borrego, Sr., appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed upon his second revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Borrego contends that the district court erred by failing to consider sufficiently his argument that his supervised release violations were driven by his substance abuse. 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 demonstrates that the district court discussed Borrego's substance abuse issues at length and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008).
Borrego also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to provide adequate deterrence and protect the public, and Borrego's multiple breaches of the court's trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that the primary purpose of a revocation sentence is to sanction the defendant's breach of the court's trust).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).