USA V. CARLO SANTILLA, No. 19-50371 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-50371 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:19-cr-07080-BAS-1 v. CARLO MANUEL SANTILLA, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia Bashant, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Carlo Manuel Santilla appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 10-month sentence, with no supervised release to follow, imposed upon his third 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). Santilla contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it is overly punitive and lacks therapeutic value for his substance abuse issues, and because the termination of supervised release prevents him from accessing residential treatment. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range and termination of supervised release are substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Santilla’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust and his unwillingness to comply with the terms of his supervision. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (breach of trust is a proper consideration at a revocation sentencing). Contrary to Santilla’s contention, the district court’s decision to terminate supervised release was not illogical. AFFIRMED. 2 19-50371

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.