Case ID: f-appx_314/html/0079-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MEMORANDUM \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Manuel John ROSALES, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-50166.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2009.
    Ariel Neuman, U.S. Assistant, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, U.S. Assistant Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff — Appellee.
    Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant — Appellant.
    Scott Eliot Perwin, Esquire, Kenny Na-chwalter PA, Miami, FL, William F. Murphy, Dillingham & Murphy, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Amicus Curiae.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel John Rosales appeals from the 54-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for fraudulent use of access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2), and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rosales contends that the district court erred by ordering that he serve the sentence consecutive to his undischarged state sentence without expressly considering the factors under Sentencing Guideline § 5G1.3(c), and by failing to consider imposing a partially concurrent sentence. These contentions fail because the record reflects that the district court justified its sentence as a whole with reference to the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and properly exercised its sentencing discretion. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 cmt. n. 3 (2007); see also United States v. Fifield, 432 F.3d 1056, 1066 (9th Cir.2005).

Rosales similarly contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain why it was ordering a consecutive sentence, despite his non-frivolous arguments in support of a concurrent sentence. We conclude that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Catty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

We further conclude that, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See id., 520 F.3d at 993.

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