UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. VILLARREAL, No. 23-462 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-462 D.C. No.1:15-cr-00051-BLW-2 MEMORANDUM* v. MARCUS EMILIO VILLARREAL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 12, 2023** Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Marcus Emilio Villarreal appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon the third revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Villarreal contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because * 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). the district court failed to adequately account for his progress on supervision and his mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines, statutory maximum sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Villarreal’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 (stating totality of the circumstances standard); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a revocation sentence may be imposed as a sanction for the defendant’s breach of the court’s trust); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). AFFIRMED. 2 23-462

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.