USA V. ADALBERTO RIVERA, No. 14-50430 (9th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-50430 D.C. No. 3:10-cr-05135-LAB v. MEMORANDUM* ADALBERTO RIVERA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2015** Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Adalberto Rivera appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Rivera contends that the district court’s imposition of the maximum term of * 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). supervised release is illogical, punitive, and substantively unreasonable given the court’s belief that Rivera is not amenable to supervision. We review for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Collins, 684 F.3d 873, 887 (9th Cir. 2012), and find none. The record belies Rivera’s contention that the district court determined he is not amenable to supervision. Moreover, the 30-month term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Hurt, 345 F.3d 1033, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A violation of the conditions of supervised release does not obviate the need for further supervision, but rather confirms the judgment that supervision was necessary.”). AFFIRMED. 2 14-50430

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.