USA V. JOSE CASTILLO, No. 16-50278 (9th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 18 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-50278 D.C. No. 3:10-cr-05124-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* JOSE LUIS CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jose Luis Castillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of 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 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). Castillo contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The high-end sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Castillo’s multiple violations of supervised release. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover, contrary to Castillo’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered his mitigating arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). To the extent that Castillo claims that the district court improperly considered the entire petition to revoke, rather than solely the admitted allegation, he cannot establish plain error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008). His counsel stipulated that the court could consider the entire petition. AFFIRMED. 2 16-50278

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.