USA V. JOSE RIVERA VALLE, No. 19-50249 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JAN 13 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-50249 D.C. No. 8:13-cr-00034-AG-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JOSE SANTIAGO RIVERA VALLE, AKA Jose Santiago Rivera, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jose Santiago Rivera Valle appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 13-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Valle 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). consider his mitigating arguments and relying on a clearly erroneous fact regarding his criminal history. The district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record shows that the district court considered Valle’s arguments for a shorter sentence and expressly discussed some of them. The court was not required to address specifically each of Valle’s arguments. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007). The record does not show that the district court relied on a clearly erroneous fact when, in the course of explaining the basis for the sentence, it stated that past periods of incarceration had not fully deterred Valle and protected the community from his criminal activity. See United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763, 816 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating standard). Valle also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. 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 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Valle’s immigration and criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 19-50249
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.
