Opinion ID: 217943
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Substantive Reasonableness of the Imposed Sentence

Text: Finally, Rodriguez contends that his 57-month sentence was substantively unreasonable under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We disagree. With respect to Rodriguez's primary objection, the fact that Judge Burns stated the sentence was an appropriate sentence instead of a sentence not greater than necessary does not indicate the court applied an incorrect standard. This Court has itself stated that a district court should arrive at an appropriate sentence. Carty, 520 F.3d at 991. Moreover, the district court is not required to articulate each specific § 3553 factor or use specific phrases during the sentencing process. See United States v. Diaz-Argueta, 564 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2009). Rodriguez's reliance on this particular phrase is therefore unavailing. The district court did not abuse its discretion when weighing the totality of the circumstances and the § 3553 factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Judge Burns considered Rodriguez's work history, the lack of a criminal record in Mexico, his role as a conscientious father, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities. The court was also cognizant, however, of the need to deter Rodriguez and other individuals from bringing in huge amounts of cocaine.