NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-4938 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:20-cr-00085-AB-1 v.

MEMORANDUM*

FRANCO ARMANDO MORENO, Jr.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Amy M. Baggio, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Franco Armando Moreno, Jr. appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised

release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Moreno contends the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond

to his argument that the “more punitive” sentence he served for his original

offense—because an allegedly erroneous state detainer prevented his transfer to

community confinement before his release date—justified a lower revocation

sentence. We review this claim for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-

Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there is none. The

district court listened to Moreno’s mitigating arguments, including his argument

about his original sentence, and concluded that they justified a sentence two

months below what probation and the government had recommended, but not as

low as the eight-month sentence Moreno had requested. On this record, Moreno

has not shown a “reasonable probability” he would have a received a shorter

sentence had the court said more to address his arguments. See United States v.

Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

Moreno also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because

the district court placed undue weight on the need to punish his revocation

conduct, which he claims was limited to “a single relapse event.” To the extent

Moreno is asserting that the court improperly relied on punishment as a sentencing

factor, he again fails to show plain error because the record reflects that the court

properly sought to sanction Moreno for his “overall performance” on supervision,

including his dishonesty with probation. See United States v. Taylor, 153 F.4th

2 25-4938 934, 939-40, 946 (9th Cir. 2025). To the extent Moreno argues that the sentence is

substantively unreasonable because his violations were the result of one relapse,

the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable under

the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552

U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

3 25-4938