Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario RODRIGUEZ-MALDONADO, a.k.a. Mario Maldonado Rodriguez, a.k.a. Pablo Ochoa-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-25
Citations: 594 F. App'x 382
Docket Number: Nos. 14-10157, 14-10158
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario RODRIGUEZ-MALDONADO, a.k.a. Mario Maldonado Rodriguez, a.k.a. Pablo Ochoa-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 382–383

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.