UNITED STATES v. VEGA (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Jaime Vega appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Vega argues that the district court erred by failing to provide specific reasons for his above-Guidelines sentence. Because Vega did not raise this objection in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006). The record demonstrates that the district court imposed the sentence after considering Vega’s history and characteristics, particularly Vega’s very poor history on supervision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Vega next 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, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 18-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Vega’s history on supervision. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.