Vidana

MEMORANDUM

Jaycob Vidana appeals his 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Vidana contends that his sentence must be vacated because the district court failed to state in open court its specific reasons for imposing the statutory maximum of 24 months instead of a sentence within the 8 to 14-month range recommended by the “policy statements” of Chapter Seven of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.

During the revocation proceedings, Vidana admitted to a year-long pattern of supervised release violations:

At sentencing, after the district court stated that Vidana’s sentence was 24 months, defense counsel asked, “[I]s there a reason why the court imposed the maximum in this case?” When the district court responded, “This man has not done anything responsible at all in the case,” the court clearly was explaining that it was Vidana’s persistent pattern of supervised release violations that warranted the 24-month sentence. The court’s explanation, while terse, “is sufficient to provide us with a basis to review the sentence, and thus meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (c)(2).” United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th…