United States v. Carlo Santilla

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 16, 2020
• Docket: 19-50371
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50371

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:19-cr-07080-BAS-1 v.

CARLO MANUEL SANTILLA, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia Bashant, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Carlo Manuel Santilla appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 10-month sentence, with no supervised release to follow, imposed

upon his third revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Santilla contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it

is overly punitive and lacks therapeutic value for his substance abuse issues, and

because the termination of supervised release prevents him from accessing

residential treatment. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence at the high end of the

Guidelines range and termination of supervised release are substantively

reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of

the circumstances, including Santilla’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust and

his unwillingness to comply with the terms of his supervision. See Gall, 552 U.S.

at 51; see also United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006)

(breach of trust is a proper consideration at a revocation sentencing). Contrary to

Santilla’s contention, the district court’s decision to terminate supervised release

was not illogical.

AFFIRMED.

2 19-50371