UNITED STATES v. GARCIA SOLORIO (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Arcenio Garcia-Solorio appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 14-month sentence imposed upon his revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Garcia-Solorio contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide an adequate explanation for his sentence. Although a fuller explanation is probably called for, reviewing for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), we conclude that Garcia-Solorio has failed to show that any error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Garcia-Solorio’s contention that the district court imposed the sentence to punish him more harshly for the underlying offense is unsupported by the record; if the court had wished to impose a harsher sentence for the new immigration offense, it could simply have imposed a higher sentence in that case.

Garcia-Solorio also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 14-month term is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Garcia-Solorio’s history, characteristics, and the need for adequate deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.