UNITED STATES v. KEY AYALA (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Omar Key-Ayala appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 15-month sentence imposed upon his second revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Key-Ayala contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately. 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 sufficiently explained its reasons for the above-Guidelines sentence, including Key-Ayala's poor performance on supervision despite receiving a lenient sentence for his underlying offense. See United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635, 637 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, contrary to Key-Ayala's contention, the record reflects that the district court relied on only proper sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

Key-Ayala contends that these alleged procedural errors also render his sentence substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Key-Ayala's repeated violations of the court's trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1062 (primary purpose of revocation sentence is to sanction defendant's breach of the court's trust).

AFFIRMED.