From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lopez-Aquirre

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 1, 2016
No. 15-50219 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-50219

08-01-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAMIRO LOPEZ-AQUIRRE, a.k.a. Hector Lopez, a.k.a. Ramiro Lopez, a.k.a. Ramiro Lopez-Aguirre, Defendant - Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-07131-GT MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Gordon Thompson, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

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

Ramiro Lopez-Aquirre appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lopez-Aquirre contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to his mitigating arguments. We review for harmless error, see United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2011), and find none. The record reflects that the district court listened to Lopez-Aquirre's mitigating arguments. Moreover, the district court's reasons for imposing the sentence are apparent from the record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) ("[A]dequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole."). Nothing more was required. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Lopez-Aquirre

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 1, 2016
No. 15-50219 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2016)
Case details for

United States v. Lopez-Aquirre

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAMIRO LOPEZ-AQUIRRE…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Aug 1, 2016

Citations

No. 15-50219 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2016)