United States v. Villarreal

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 18, 2023
• Docket: 23-462
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-462 D.C. No.1:15-cr-00051-BLW-2 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MARCUS EMILIO VILLARREAL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Marcus Emilio Villarreal appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon the third revocation of his

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

Villarreal contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because

* 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 district court failed to adequately account for his progress on supervision and

his mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines, statutory maximum

sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and

the totality of the circumstances, including Villarreal’s repeated breaches of the

court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 (stating totality of the circumstances

standard); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding

that a revocation sentence may be imposed as a sanction for the defendant’s breach

of the court’s trust); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904,

908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case

is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-462