Opinion
No. 13-50124 D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04099-IEG
01-21-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PONCIANO DIAZ-SOSA, a.k.a. Guillermo Ortega Gonzalez, Defendant - Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ponciano Diaz-Sosa appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Diaz-Sosa contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to pronounce the Guidelines range prior to imposing the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. Diaz-Sosa has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the district court reiterated the applicable Guidelines range immediately before pronouncing the below-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
Diaz-Sosa also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his mitigation arguments. The record shows the district court heard Diaz-Sosa's mitigation arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).
AFFIRMED.