Opinion
No. 18-10259
05-23-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAY SEGALA, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 4:05-cr-00962-CKJ-41 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Ray Segala appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 12-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Segala contends that the district court erred by (1) failing to explain adequately its decision to run the revocation sentence consecutive to the sentence imposed for his new criminal conviction in state court, and (2) imposing the sentence in order to punish him for the conduct underlying the revocation. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered only the proper 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, including the nature and extent of Segala's breach of the court's trust, and did not impose the sentence solely or primarily to punish Segala for the new offense. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, the court sufficiently explained the basis for the within-Guidelines sentence, see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Segala's unopposed motions to treat this appeal as timely and for judicial notice are granted. All other pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.