Opinion
No. 15-50208
10-19-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. VICTOR MANUEL VILLALOBOS-ESTRADA, Defendant - Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00003-BEN MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Victor Manuel Villalobos-Estrada appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 12-month prison sentence and two-year term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
First, Villalobos-Estrada argues that the district court failed to consider the "parsimony principle" under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This argument is unpersuasive. The court's description of the 12-month sentence as "reasonable" was based on its analysis of the statutory sentencing factors, which reflect the parsimony principle.
Next, Villalobos-Estrada asserts that the district court erred by basing the sentence on the costs associated with prosecution. We disagree. Notwithstanding the court's passing reference to judicial resources while discussing whether Villalobos-Estrada could relocate his family to Mexico, the record reflects that the court based the sentence on the statutory sentencing factors, including the need to deter.
Finally, Villalobos-Estrada argues that both his prison term and his term of supervised release are substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Both the prison term and the period of supervised release are substantively reasonable in light of the relevant sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.; United States v. Castro-Verdugo, 750 F.3d 1065, 1072 (9th Cir. 2014).
AFFIRMED.