USA V. ANTHONY ESCOBAR, No. 17-30192 (9th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-30192 D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00017-RMP v. MEMORANDUM* ANTHONY RAY ESCOBAR, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Anthony Ray Escobar appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 7-month sentence and 35-month term of supervised release imposed upon his second 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). Escobar contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because a time-served sentence, or a 7-month sentence with no supervised release term to follow, would have been sufficient to meet the goals of sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The fact that a different sentence might also have been reasonable is not grounds for reversal. See id. Moreover, contrary to Escobar’s contention, the record reflects that the district court adequately considered and addressed his arguments for a lesser sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). AFFIRMED. 2 17-30192

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.