From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Hunosta

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 16, 2015
597 F. App'x 450 (9th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 14-50146

03-16-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JORGE CASTILLEJO HUNOSTA, a.k.a. Mike Castillego, a.k.a. Jorge Huandsta Castillejo, a.k.a. Erik Caston, a.k.a. Saul Matias, Defendant - Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00682-SVW MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Jorge Castillejo Hunosta appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Castillejo Hunosta contends that the district court erred by (1) failing to address or consider his request that the revocation sentence run concurrently to the sentence imposed for Castillejo Hunosta's new criminal conviction, and (2) relying on impermissible sentencing factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered only proper sentencing factors, as well as Castillejo Hunosta's argument for a concurrent sentence, and sufficiently explained the sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Hunosta

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 16, 2015
597 F. App'x 450 (9th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Hunosta

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JORGE CASTILLEJO…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 16, 2015

Citations

597 F. App'x 450 (9th Cir. 2015)