N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff- Appe lle e , v. SER GIO PATR IC K R ODR IGUEZ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10495

D.C . No. 1:13-c r-00109-LJO-SKO1 M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d Oc tobe r 17, 2016. ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and M U R GUIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B ENNETT, *** Se nior Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED OCT 25 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora

l a rgum e nt. Se e F E D . R . A P P . P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble M ark W . B e nne tt, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Iowa , sitting by de signa tion.De fe nda nt Se rgio R odrigue z wa s c o nvic te d by a jury of willfully

atte m pting to inte rfe re with thesa fe flight of a n a irc ra ft by

a im ing a la se r pointe r at it, in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 32(a )(5) a nd (a )(8), and a im ing a

la s e r pointe r at a

n a irc ra ft, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 39A. He wa s se nte nc e d to 168 m onths on the § 32(a )(5) and (a )(8) offe nse and 60 m onths on the § 39A offe nse . The fa c ts of this c a s e are se t out in c onside ra ble de t a il in our de c ision on R odrigue z ’ s first a ppe a l. Unite d State

s v . Rodrigue

z , 790 F.3d 951 (9th C ir. 2015). In tha t de c ision, we va c ate d R odrigue z ’ s c onvic tion a nd se nte nc e on the § 32(a )(5) and (a )(8) offe nse . Although R

odrigue z ha d not a

p pe a le d his c onvic tion on the § 39A offe nse , we a lso re m a

nde d for re se nte n c i ng on tha t offe nse . W e did so in light of an inte rve ning de c ision in Unite d State s v . Garde nhire , 784 F.3d 1277 (9th C ir. 2015), a nd be c a use R odrigue z ’ s sta

tutory -m a xim

um se nte n c e for his § 39A c onvic tion wa s a

re s ult of thedistric t c ourt’ s c a lc ulation of his ba se offe nse le ve l for the § 32(a )(5) and (a )(8) c onvic tion, whic h we ha d re v e rse d. Rodrigue

z , 790 F.3d at 961. On re m and, the c ourt a ga in se nte nc e d R odrigue z to 60 m onths on his § 39A c onvic tion, e ve n though his advisory guide line s se nte nc ing ra

n ge wa s only

21 to 27 m onths. Rodrigue z now a ppe a ls tha

t se nte nc e a s substa

n tive ly unre a sona

ble and se e ks a

re m a nd to a diffe re nt c ourt for re se nte nc ing. W e a ffirm .

21. R odrigue z c onte nds tha t his a bove -Guide line se nte n c e — i nde e d , one that m o re tha n double d his a dvisory

guide line s se n te n c e —

w a s unwa rrante d a nd that the c ourt ove rstate d the c irc um sta nc e s of the c rim e and his c rim ina l history , while giving little

or no we i ght to other re l e va nt § 3553(a) fa c tors. He argue s tha t the c ourt use d c onduc t tha t wa s m e re ly

an e le m e nt of the offe nse to e nha nc e his se nte nc e . He a lso a

rgue s tha t his c rim ina l re c ord wa s a lre a dy a c c ounte d for in the c a lc ulat ion of his c rim ina l history a s c ate gory

VI. He a lso c onte n ds tha t the c ourt did not a de quate ly

c onside r the e ffe c t of a l c ohol on his a bility to c ontrol his be havior. Fina lly , he c onte nds tha t his sta tutory -m a xim

um se n t e nc e c re at e s a

n unwa rrante d dispa

rity with his c o-de fe nda

nt a nd othe rs c onvic t e d of a

§ 39A offe nse . W e disa gre e with e a c h of the se c onte ntions. a. As we e xpla ine d in our de c i sion in Unite d State s v . Re ssam , 679 F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th C ir. 2012) (e n ba nc ), “ [w] e re vie w a

c ha lle nge [to the substa

ntive re a s ona ble ne s s of a

se nte n c e ] unde r what the Supre m e C ourt ha s de sc ribe d a s ‘ the fam ilia r a buse -of-disc re tion sta

nda rd of re vie w.’ ” (Quoting Gall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007).) Thus, while we a fford the distric t

judge ’ s se nte nc ing de c ision “ signific ant de fe re nc e ,” and “ ‘ we m ay not re v e rse just be c a

use we think a diffe re nt se nte nc e is a

ppropria te ,’ ” se eid. at 1086 (quoting U nite d State

s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc )), we do not sim

ply “ rubbe r sta

m p” the 3distric t judge ’ s de c ision, id. at 1087. Rathe r, “ ‘ we m ay re ve rse if, upon re v ie wing

the re c ord, we have a

de finite and firm

c onvic t ion tha

t the distric t c ourt c om

m itte d a c le ar e rror of judgm e nt in thec onc lusion it re a c he d upon we ighing there le va nt fa c t ors.’ ” Id. (quoting Unite d State s v . Ame zc ua–Vasque

z , 567 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th C ir. 2009)). It is true tha

t R odrigue z ’ s 60-m onth se nte nc e va rie d to a substa ntia l de gre e from his a dvisory

guide l ine s se nte nc ing ra

nge , in the se nse tha

t it wa s m ore tha

n double the high e nd of his a dvisory guide line s se nte nc ing ra

nge . As we re c o gniz e d in Re

ssam , howe ve r: The Supre m e C ourt ha s e xplic itly re j e c te d “ the use of a rigid m at he m atic a l form

ula that use s the pe rc e nta ge of a de p arture a s the sta

nda rd for de te rm ining the stre ngth of the justific ations re quire d for a spe c ific se nte nc e .” Gall , 552 U.S. a t 47, 128 S.C t. 586. It ha s m a de c le ar, none the le ss, tha t we are to c o nside r the “ e xte nt of the de viation a

nd e nsure that the justific ation is suffic ie ntly c om

p e lling to support the

de gre e of the va rianc e .” Id. at 50, 128 S.C t. 586. It is in tha t light tha t we m ust a sse ss the distric t c ourt’ s c onside ra t ion of the § 3553(a ) fa c tors. Re ssam , 679 F.3d a

t 1090. He re , the distric t

c o urt offe re d se ve ra l suffic i e ntly c om pe lling justific ations for thede g re e of the va rianc e . Id. The c ourt c onside re d the first § 3553(a) fa c tor, “ the nature and c irc um s ta nc e s of the offe n se ,” just a s we did in Re s sam . Id. While R odrigue z ’ s 4offe nse wa s not a s pote ntia lly “ horrific ” a s R e ssa

m ’ s , the distric t

judge re a s ona

bly found tha t R odrigue z ’ s offe n se involve d “ a da n ge rous, da

nge rous c irc um sta

nc e ,” se e Se n ’ g Tr. (10/8/15) a

t 20:24, a nd wa s of “ an horre ndously a ggravate d nature and [a n] a ggravate d c irc um sta

nc e in this c a se ,” re ga

rdle ss of wha

t R odrigue z kne w a bout theda

n ge r. Se e id. at 22:16-24; se e ge ne rally id. at 20:24-26:15. M ore ove r, a im ing the la se r pointe r at the he lic opte r just o nc e would ha v e be e n suffic ie nt for a § 39A offe n se , s e e Rodrigue z , 790 F.3d a

t 960 (“ [T] he fa c t tha

t R odrigue z inte ntiona lly

shine d the la s e r at the he lic opte r [wa s] e nough for a § 39A c ha rge . . . .” ), but R odrigue z inc re a se d the da nge rousne ss of the offe nse by striking the

he lic opte r six or se ve n tim e s . Se n ’ g Tr. (10/8/15) a t 21:8-12. Heha d a lso “ involve d his mi nor c hildre n or a llowe d . . . the m to c ontinue to be involve d,” id. at 21:14-16, which the c ourt re a sona b ly c onside re d a

n a ggravating c irc um s ta nc e . The c ourt a lso re a sona

b l y c onc lude d tha

t R o drigue z ’ s c rim ina l history wa s a ggrav at ing, be y ond wha

t his c rim ina l history

sc ore indic ate d. Se e Re

ssam , 679 F.3d at 1091 (“ Se c tion 3553(a )(1) ide ntifie s ‘ the history and c ha ra c te ristic s of the de fe nda n t’ a s one of the fa c tors to c onside r in im posing a se n te nc e .” ). As the distric t c ourt found:

5[T] his de fe nda n t ha s a se rious c rim i na l history

re c ord, dating a s far ba c k a s his mid-te e n y e ars, inc luding fe lony be havior a

nd obstruc ting a

nd re sisting offic e rs; his c la im to be a B ulldog stre e t ga

ng m e m be r; ha ving prior fe lony c om m itm e nt, plus six m

isde m e anors, inc luding c o rpora l injury to a c oha bita nt; obstruc ting a

n offic e r; spitting on an offic e r; re fe rring to offic e rs a s, quote , a n offic e r a s a “ white -wa she d M e xic an” ’ ; [a n d] hitting his c oha

bita nt five tim e s in thefa c e . Se n’ g Tr. (10/8/15) a

t 27:2-10. The

c ourt a lso note d

tha t R odrigue z ha d c om

m itte d the o ffe nse while on proba tion, showing tha

t he did not ta

ke the te rm s a

n d c onditions of proba

t ion se riously . Id. at 27:11-13. In light of this rec o rd, the c ourt re a s ona bly c onc lude d tha

t R odrigue z wa s “ c rim ina lly out of c ontrol,” did not

“ re spe c t the la w ,” re quire d “ de t e rre nc e ,” and tha t the public ne e de d prote c t ion from him . Id. at 27:12-19; se e also 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a )(2)(A) (“ se riousne ss of the offe nse ” and “ re spe c t for the la w” ), (B ) (“ de t e rre nc e ” ), and (C ) (“ prote c t the public ” ). The se nte n c e of 60 m onths wa s the m a xim um a uthoriz e d by the sta

tute de fining theoffe nse . Se e 18 U.S.C . § 39A(a ); se e also id. § 3553(a )(3) (“ t he kinds of se n te nc e s a

va ila ble ” ). Unde r the c i rc um sta nc e s of this c a se , we c annot sa y tha t the c ourt a

buse d its disc re t ion by

c onc luding tha

t R odrigue z should bese nte nc e d to the a va ila ble sta tutory m a xim um .

6In short, we c onc lude tha t R odrigue z ’ s se n te nc e satisfie s the “ touc hstone ” of re a s ona ble ne s s, be c a

use “ the re c ord a s a

whole re fle c ts rationa l a

nd m e aningful c onside ra tion of thefa c tors e num e ra te d in 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ).” Re ssam , 679 F.3d at 1089 (quota

t i on m arks om itte d). b. Although R

odrigue z c onte nds tha

t his 60-m onth se nte nc e c re ate s a n unwa rrante d se nte nc ing dispa

rity with his c o-de fe nda

n t a nd othe rs who ha

v e c om m itte d a § 39A offe nse , we disa gre e . S e e 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a )(6). R odrigue z ha s not ide ntifie d a

ny othe r de fe nda

nt who c om

m itte d a § 39A offe nse involving a s m any “ strike s” of the a irc ra ft with thela s e r pointe r, any othe r § 39A de fe nda nt or c o-de fe nda

nt who ha d

a s signific ant a

c rim ina l history , or a

ny othe r § 39A de fe nda n t or c o-de fe nda

nt who ha d displa

y e d suc h disre spe c t for the la w in his c rim ina l history . The c ourt re a sona bly c o nc lude d tha

t R odrigue z ’ s c o-de fe nda nt, who wa s his c o-ha

bita n t , wa s dom inate d by

R odrigue z , so tha

t he r c irc um sta

nc e s we re distinguisha

ble . B e c a use we are not le ft with “ a de finite an d firm

c onvic tion tha

t the distric t c ourt c om m itte d a c le ar e rror of judgm e nt in thec onc lusion it re a c he d upon we ighing the re le va

nt fa c tors,” Re

ssam , 679 F.3d a

t 1087, we a ffirm

R odrigue z ’ s se nte nc e .

72. R odrigue z a lso re que sts tha t, if a re se n te nc ing is orde re d, we dire c t re a s signm e nt to a

diffe re nt judge , in orde r to pre se rve the a ppe aranc e of justic e . B e c a use we do not re m and for re se nte nc ing, this re que st is de n i e d a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.

8