USA V. VICTOR VILLALOBOS-ESTRADA, No. 15-50208 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 19 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, No. 15-50208 D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00003-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* VICTOR MANUEL VILLALOBOSESTRADA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 14, 2015** Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Victor Manuel Villalobos-Estrada appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month prison sentence and two-year term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under * 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. First, Villalobos-Estrada argues that the district court failed to consider the “parsimony principle” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This argument is unpersuasive. The court’s description of the 12-month sentence as “reasonable” was based on its analysis of the statutory sentencing factors, which reflect the parsimony principle. Next, Villalobos-Estrada asserts that the district court erred by basing the sentence on the costs associated with prosecution. We disagree. Notwithstanding the court’s passing reference to judicial resources while discussing whether Villalobos-Estrada could relocate his family to Mexico, the record reflects that the court based the sentence on the statutory sentencing factors, including the need to deter. Finally, Villalobos-Estrada argues that both his prison term and his term of supervised release are substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Both the prison term and the period of supervised release are substantively reasonable in light of the relevant sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.; United States v. Castro-Verdugo, 750 F.3d 1065, 1072 (9th Cir. 2014). AFFIRMED. 2 15-50208
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.
