USA v. Alejandro Sanchez, No. 10-50217 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 05 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-50217 D.C. No. 3:08-cr-01182-JAH v. MEMORANDUM * ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ, a.k.a. Jose Alfredo Jimenez-Manzanares, a.k.a. Fernando Rodriguez-Masas, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2010 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Alejandro Sanchez appeals from the ten-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 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). Sanchez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to: (1) calculate the advisory Guidelines range; (2) expressly address the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); and (3) explain the reasons for the sentence imposed. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). Sanchez next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating personal circumstances. The record reflects that the tenmonth sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51-52 (2007). Sanchez last contends that the revocation of supervised release requires impermissible judicial fact-finding that violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As he concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2006), and United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED. 2 10-50217

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.