Case ID: f-appx_594/html/0382-01.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. Mario RODRIGUEZ-MALDONADO, a.k.a. Mario Maldonado Rodriguez, a.k.a. Pablo Ochoa-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 14-10157, 14-10158.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2015.
    Matthew G. Eltringham, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew J. McGuire, Patagonia, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously Concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Mario Rodriguez-Maldonado appeals from the district court’s judgments and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 18-month, partially concurrent sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rodriguez-Maldonado contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide a sufficient explanation for the sentences imposed, including its reasons for rejecting his arguments in favor of a lower sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006), and find none. The record demonstrates that the court heard Rodriguez-Maldonado’s arguments in mitigation, and its explanation of the sentence was adequate. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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