United States v. Javier Moreno-Mendoza
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Javier Moreno-Mendoza appeals from the 6-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Moreno-Mendoza contends that the district court procedurally erred because it failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e) sentencing factors, failed to consider his arguments in mitigation, and failed adequately to explain his sentence. The district court listened to Moreno-Mendoza’s mitigating arguments and then imposed a below-Guidelines sentence. It did not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010).
Moreno-Mendoza also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to properly consider the sentencing factors. The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3583(e) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Moreno-Mendoza’s contention that section 3583(e)(3) is unconstitutional is fore closed by United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.2008).