United States v. Francisco Amaya-Portillo

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 19 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10533 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00955-SRB-1 v. FRANCISCO MISAEL AMAYA- MEMORANDUM* PORTILLO, AKA Francisco Amaya- Portillo, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2016** San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER, CHRISTEN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. After Francisco Amaya-Portillo pleaded guilty to violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), the district court sentenced him to 18-months of imprisonment, followed * 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). by three years of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm the sentence. Amaya-Portillo’s sole claim on appeal is that the government breached the plea agreement he had entered into by implicitly arguing for a harsher sentence than the agreement allowed. We disagree. While the government could have recommended the agreed-upon sentence more enthusiastically, it had no obligation to do that. See United States v. Johnson, 187 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, the government recommended the proper sentence, gave reasons to support it, and addressed likely objections. This is all the agreement reasonably demanded. AFFIRMED. 2