Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse Francisco ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-15
Citations: 308 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 08-10025
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse Francisco ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse Francisco ROSALES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10025.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Jan. 15, 2009.
Kathleen A. Servatius, Esq., USF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Katherine L. Hart, Esq., Law Offices of Katherine L. Hart, Fresno, CA, for Defen-dantr-Appellant.
Before: WALLACE, TROTT and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jesse Francisco Rosales appeals from the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction to conspiracy to distribute and possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rosales did not object to the district court's consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or to the explanation of the sentence at sentencing, and therefore we review the sentence for plain error. United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir.2008). Rosales did not file a sentencing memorandum, and the brief arguments he made at the sentencing hearing were specifically addressed by the district court. In addition, the low-end-of-the-guidelines sentence did not necessitate robust explanation. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir.2008). We conclude that any error the district court made at sentencing did not affect substantial rights nor affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings, and therefore it was not plain error. See Waknine, 543 F.3d at 551.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.