United States v. Pedro Gomez-Pena

MEMORANDUM

Pedro Gomez-Pena 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.

Gomez-Pena challenges the district court’s within-Guidelines sentence, claiming that the court’s consideration of his prior sentences was proeedurally erroneous because it improperly incorporated the concept of punishment into the revocation sentence. We review for harmlessness, see United States v. Grissom, 525 F.3d 691 , 696 & n. 2 (9th Cir.2008), and find no error. The district court properly considered Gomez-Pena’s prior sentences as part of its evaluation of his history and characteristics and the need for deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007).

Gomez-Pena next argues that the district court proeedurally erred by failing to address his arguments for a shorter sentence due to his age and medical conditions. We review for plain error, see United States v. Bonilla-Guizar, 729 F.3d 1179, 1187 (9th Cir.2013), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Gomez-Pena’s mitigating…