United States v. Donovan Delores

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 18, 2019
• Docket: 19-10191
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10191

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:17-cr-00032-RCC- BGM-1 v.

DONOVAN QUENTIN DELORES, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Donovan Quentin Delores appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon his third revocation of supervised

release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Delores contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

* 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). explain the sentence adequately. 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 sufficiently explained its reasons

for adopting probation’s recommendation to impose the above-Guidelines

sentence, including Delores’s history of noncompliance and his unsuitability for

supervised release. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc). Moreover, contrary to Delores’s contention, the record reflects that the

district court relied on only proper sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e);

United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

Delores also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable

because his violation was merely “technical.” The district court did not abuse its

discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the

totality of the circumstances, including Delores’s repeated violations of the court’s

trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1063.

AFFIRMED.

2 19-10191