Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 18-2104

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND SANTANA-AVILES,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpí, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

Before

Lynch, Selya, and Barron, Circuit Judges.

David Ramos-Pagán on brief for appellant. Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate Division, and Francisco A. Besosa-Martínez, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

December 10, 2019 PER CURIAM. We summarily affirm the revocation sentence

and revocation judgment in this matter. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

The sentence imposed is procedurally sound. The

district court did not consider any impermissible factors nor did

it rely on any inaccurate information. "After all, where there is

more than one plausible view of the circumstances, the sentencing

court's choice among supportable alternatives cannot be" abuse of

discretion. United States v. Ruiz,

(1st Cir.

1990). There was, therefore, no abuse of discretion. See Gall v.

United States,

(2007); United States v. Flores-

Machicote,

(1st Cir. 2013).

So, too, the district court articulated a plausible

sentencing rationale and achieved a defensible result. See United

States v. Martin,

(1st Cir. 2008). The sentence

— though higher than the Guidelines sentence that the defendant

sought — is within the wide "universe of reasonable sentencing

outcomes." United States v. Vargas-García,

(1st

Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Clogston,

(1st Cir. 2011)). Consequently, the defendant's claim of

substantive unreasonableness is without merit.

Affirmed.

- 2 -