Case ID: f-appx_632/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edith Tomasa RODRIGUEZ-CARDENAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50363.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 26, 2016.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Stephanie Christensen, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Wendy T. Wu, Assistant U.S., Central District of California, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kathryn Ann Young, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edith Tomasa Rodriguez-Cardenas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the nine-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rodriguez-Cardenas contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately, failing to respond to her mitigating arguments, and relying on clearly erroneous facts. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered Rodriguez-Cardenas’ mitigating arguments and adequately explained the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Furthermore, contrary to Rodriguez-Cardenas’ contention, the district court did not rely on clearly erroneous facts at sentencing.

Rodriguez-Cardenas also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors she presented at sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Rodriguez-Cardenas’ 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 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Rodriguez-Cardenas’ breach of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007) (at a revocation sentencing, breach of trust is an appropriate sentencing factor).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.