USA V. HENRY MURILLO, No. 11-50261 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-50261 D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00117-JLS v. MEMORANDUM * HENRY EDWARD MURILLO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Henry Edward Murillo appeals from the 30-month term of supervised release imposed following the revocation of his 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Murillo contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary, and the district court relied on impermissible factors in its sentencing decision. Taken in context, the district court s reference to punishment concerned sanctions for Murillo s supervised release violation, not for the underlying state crime. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, Murillo s 30-month term of supervised release, which is below the statutory maximum, is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 11-50261
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
