Court Opinion

ID: 9394928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 17:00:54.048664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:04.266656
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAY 16 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   21-50094

                Plaintiff-Appellee,              D.C. Nos.
                                                 3:11-cr-04153-WQH-10
 v.                                              3:11-cr-04153-WQH

ROBERT COTA, Jr.,
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of California
                   William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 10, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

      Robert Cota, Jr. appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence

reduction and subsequent motion for reconsideration. This Court has jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews for abuse of discretion. United States v. Aruda,

993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021); Do Sung Uhm v. Humana, Inc., 620 F.3d 1134,

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1140 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

      1.     When a party “raises a specific, nonfrivolous argument tethered to a

relevant § 3553(a) factor[,] then the judge should normally explain why he accepts

or rejects the party’s position.” United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th

Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). The district court adequately did so here. The court

acknowledged Cota’s arguments in favor of reduction, and concluded that “in light

of the significant departure applied by the Court at the time of sentencing, the

seriousness of the offenses,” and Cota’s history and characteristics, reducing the

“sentence to time served would fail to protect the public, and fail to afford adequate

deterrence to criminal conduct.” See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959,

1965–67 (2018) (upholding use of form order); United States v. Wilson, 8 F.4th 970,

977 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (finding “minimal explanation” adequate). Having

evaluated Cota’s arguments under the § 3553(a) factors in both its original order

denying sentence reduction and in its order denying reconsideration, the court was

not required to explicitly reject every argument. See United States v. Plascencia-

Orozco, 852 F.3d 910, 928 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that the district court’s failure to

“directly address” two factors was not an abuse of discretion where other factors

sufficiently supported the sentence imposed).

      2.     Because the district court’s evaluation of the § 3553(a) factors

independently justified denying sentence reduction, we need not consider whether

                                          2
Cota established the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” also required under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 945–48 (9th

Cir. 2022).

      AFFIRMED.

                                        3