UNITED STATES v. TRUONG (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Phu Chi Truong appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 37-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Truong contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider and address his arguments in favor of a non-custodial sentence. 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 considered the parties’ arguments and concluded that a within-Guidelines sentence was warranted to sanction Truong’s breach of the court’s trust, afford adequate deterrence to future criminal conduct, and protect the public. The district court was not required to address specifically each of Truong’s arguments. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.