Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Arturo RODRIGUEZ-GOMEZ, aka Jose Arturo Alvarez-Flores, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-16
Citations: 131 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 04-50455; D.C. No. CR-03-00861-GT
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Arturo RODRIGUEZ-GOMEZ, aka Jose Arturo Alvarez-Flores, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 594–594

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Arturo RODRIGUEZ-GOMEZ, aka Jose Arturo Alvarez-Flores, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-50455.
D.C. No. CR-03-00861-GT.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 2005.
Decided May 16, 2005.
Alessandra P. Serano, Asst. U.S. Atty., USSD—Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lee Plummer, Bonita, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Arturo Rodriguez-Gomez appeals the district court's imposition of consecutive sentences for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and his previous conditions of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Rodriguez-Gomez did not lodge any objection at the time of sentencing, we review for plain error, see United States v. Steffen, 251 F.3d 1273, 1275-76 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
Rodriguez-Gomez contends that the district court erred in imposing a consecutive sentence because it failed to consider the "extraordinary circumstances" that motivated Rodriguez-Gomez to violate the terms of his supervised release. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in sentencing Rodriguez-Gomez to consecutive sentences. See Steffen, 251 F.3d at 1278-79; United States v. Kim, 196 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.