USA V. DONOVAN DELORES, No. 19-10191 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 18 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-10191 D.C. No. 4:17-cr-00032-RCCBGM-1 v. DONOVAN QUENTIN DELORES, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Donovan Quentin Delores appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon his third revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Delores contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to * 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). explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court sufficiently explained its reasons for adopting probation’s recommendation to impose the above-Guidelines sentence, including Delores’s history of noncompliance and his unsuitability for supervised release. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to Delores’s contention, the record reflects that the district court relied on only proper sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Delores also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because his violation was merely “technical.” The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Delores’s repeated violations of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1063. AFFIRMED. 2 19-10191
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.
