USA V. ARREZ MELITON-SALTO, No. 18-50038 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-50038 D.C. No. 3:17-cr-00523-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* ARREZ MELITON-SALTO, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Arrez Meliton-Salto appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the sentence imposed following his bench-trial conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 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). Meliton-Salto challenges the three-year term of supervised release imposed by the district court. He contends that the court procedurally erred by failing to consider U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c), calculate the Guidelines range for supervised release, and adequately explain the sentence. Because Meliton-Salto did not raise these objections in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008). There was no plain error. The district court explained that it believed that a term of supervised release was necessary in light of its concerns about deterrence and protection of the public. The court followed the applicable Guideline, see U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5, and adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, MelitonSalto has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the court explicitly calculated the Guidelines range for supervised release. See Dallman, 533 F.3d at 762. AFFIRMED. 2 18-50038
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.
