UNITED STATES v. MORALES DOMINGUEZ (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-23No. No. 20-10392

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no procedural error in the sentencing process and determining that the 15-month consecutive sentence was substantively reasonable.

Jaime Morales-Dominguez appealed a 15-month consecutive sentence imposed when his supervised release was revoked. He claimed the district court made several procedural errors, including failing to adequately explain the sentence, not considering the parties' arguments, treating the sentencing guidelines as mandatory rather than advisory, and relying on improper factors in determining the penalty.

The appellate court reviewed the record for clear error and found none. The court determined that the district judge had properly treated the guidelines as advisory, meaningfully considered both sides' positions, and provided sufficient reasoning for the consecutive sentence. The court also found no evidence that any impermissible sentencing factors influenced the decision. The resulting sentence fell within the guideline range and was reasonable given the statutory factors relevant to supervised release revocations and the overall circumstances of the case.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the district court adequately explained the rationale for imposing a consecutive sentence
Whether the district court properly treated the sentencing guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory
Whether the sentence was substantively reasonable under applicable law

Procedural posture

Morales-Dominguez appealed the district court's judgment imposing a 15-month consecutive sentence upon revocation of his supervised release.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Jaime Morales-Dominguez appeals from the district courts judgment and challenges the 15-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Morales-Dominguez argues that the district court procedurally erred by (1) failing to explain adequately the sentence; (2) failing to consider the parties’ arguments; (2) treating the Guidelines as mandatory; and (3) relying on impermissible sentencing factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court properly treated the Guidelines as advisory, considered the parties’ arguments, and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the within-Guidelines sentence to run consecutive to the sentence imposed for conduct that triggered the revocation. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). The record does not support Morales-Dominguezs claim that the district court relied on an improper sentencing factor.

Morales-Dominguez also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the alleged procedural errors. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines, consecutive sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.