United States v. Arnulfo Martinez

MEMORANDUM

Arnulfo Ricardo Martinez 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.

Martinez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors and his mitigating arguments. 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 Martinez’s mitigating arguments and the relevant sentencing factors but determined that a low-end, consecutive sentence was warranted because Martinez violated supervised release by committing another drug offense. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007).

Martinez also contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Martinez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the…