United States v. Maruffo-Mera

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 16, 2026
• Docket: 25-6010
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-6010 D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellee, 3:23-CR-00806-RBM v. MEMORANDUM* JOSE ANGEL MARUFFO-MERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Ruth Bermudez Montenegro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 9, 2026** Pasadena, California

RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LIBURDI, District Judge.***

Jose Angel Maruffo-Mera (Maruffo-Mera) appeals from the eight-month

custodial sentence and eighteen-month term of supervised release imposed by the

* 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). *** The Honorable Michael T. Liburdi, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. district court following his revocation hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

In 2023, Maruffo-Mera pled guilty to Transportation of Certain Noncitizens

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). He was sentenced to twelve months of

imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

The government subsequently filed a petition seeking revocation of

Maruffo-Mera’s supervised release (the Petition). The Petition alleged that

Maruffo-Mera used marijuana and missed a required drug test while on supervised

release. The Petition also alleged that Maruffo-Mera threatened violence against

his federal probation officer while talking to his state probation officer.

At the revocation hearing, Maruffo-Mera admitted to the allegations related

to the marijuana use and drug test. The government declined to proceed on the

threat allegations because it “agree[d] with the defense’s analysis that it does not

meet the evidentiary requirements for making a true threat.” The government

nevertheless referenced the alleged threat during the revocation hearing over

defense counsel’s objection. The government and the probation officer also

mentioned restraining orders that were allegedly filed against Maruffo-Mera,

which defense counsel clarified were not granted, and none were pending. The

district court revoked Maruffo-Mera’s supervised release after finding a violation

of the substance abuse conditions. The district court sentenced Maruffo-Mera to

2 25-6010 eight months of imprisonment with an eighteen-month term of supervised release.

The district court “[found] the . . . sentence . . . sufficient, but not greater than

necessary, to afford adequate deterrence, to protect the public from any crimes by

the offender, and also fulfill rehabilitative needs.” The district court offered no

further explanation for the sentence. When the district court asked if there was

anything further, defense counsel responded, “No, Your Honor.” Maruffo-Mera

filed a timely Notice of Appeal.

1. It is true that “prison, whether as an initial sentence or on revocation

of supervised release, can be imposed and the duration selected only for purposes

of retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation, not rehabilitation.” United States v.

Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 282 (9th Cir. 2011). But we have determined that the district

court impermissibly imposed sentence for the purpose of rehabilitation when that

purpose was explicitly and clearly expressed. See, e.g., id. at 279 (vacating

sentence when the district court explained that “at least 24 months of imprisonment

was necessary to get [the defendant] into the prison’s rehabilitative program”);

United States v. Tapia, 665 F.3d 1059, 1061-63 (9th Cir. 2011) (vacating and

remanding when “[t]he district judge said the sentence had to be . . . sufficient to

provide needed correctional treatment, which he determined to be the 500 Hour

Drug program”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court’s statement

in this case did not rise to that level of specificity.

3 25-6010 2. Maruffo-Mera argues that the district court erred by failing to address

the parties’ factual disputes as required by Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. Maruffo-Mera’s sentence, however, was not imposed based

on any disputed facts. At the revocation hearing, the prosecution merely brought

to the court’s attention that there were accusations of unlawful behavior against

Maruffo-Mera. Maruffo-Mera never disputed that he was so accused. The district

court’s consideration of the undisputed fact that those accusations existed was

permissible. See United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935 (9th Cir.

2009) (“[D]istrict court[s] may consider a wide variety of information at

sentencing that could not otherwise be considered at trial, see 18 U.S.C. § 3661,

and [are] not bound by the rules of evidence, see Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3). . . .”)

(footnote reference omitted). The district court acknowledged that the facts

underlying those allegations had yet to be established, and did not base its decision

on those disputed underlying facts. We therefore need not decide whether Rule

32(i)(3)(B) applies in the revocation context.

3. The district court adequately explained its imposition of a midrange

sentence. When a court “decides simply to apply the Guidelines to a particular

case, doing so [does] not necessarily require lengthy explanation.” Rita v. United

States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Here, the district court “listened to [Maruffo-

Mera]’s arguments and then simply found [his] circumstances insufficient to

4 25-6010 warrant a sentence lower than the Guidelines range.” United States v. Amezcua-

Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations, alteration, and internal

quotation marks omitted). The district court therefore did not err. See id.

AFFIRMED.

5 25-6010