Argued and Submitted, Pasadena, California: June 5,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. D.C. No. 3:11-cr-04061-GT-1. Gordon Thompson, Senior District Judge, Presiding.
The panel affirmed a post-revocation sentence imposed consecutively to the defendant's criminal sentence for illegal reentry.
The defendant contended that the district court's continuance of her revocation hearing for about three weeks until after she was sentenced in her criminal case was erroneous because she requested and was denied immediate revocation sentencing.
Because Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2) covers post-revocation sentencing procedures and has a timing provision, the panel did not look to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 in assessing whether the revocation sentencing was timely.
The panel held that a district court can continue post-revocation sentencing for a reasonable time to consider a supervised releasee's sentence in the underlying criminal proceeding as part of evaluating the supervised release releasee's breach of trust, and that the approximately three-week continuance was not unreasonable under Rule 32.1
The panel concluded that the twelve-month post-revocation sentence is not substantively unreasonable.
Rory T. McHale, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, California, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jason M. Wandel (argued), Special Assistant United States Attorney; Laura E. Duffy, United States Attorney; Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant United States Attorney, San Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: Ronald M. Gould and N.R. Smith, Circuit Judges, and Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge.[*] Opinion by Judge Gould.
GOULD, Circuit Judge:
Irma Reyes-Solosa appeals her twelve-month post-revocation sentence imposed consecutively to her six-month criminal sentence for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court continued Reyes-Solosa's revocation hearing for about three weeks until after she was sentenced in her criminal case. Reyes-Solosa contends that the district court's continuance was in error because she requested and was denied immediate revocation sentencing. She also challenges the ...