Court Opinion

ID: 4401052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-05-28 20:00:36.237313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:17.020650
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 28 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    19-50002

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:18-cr-07170-DMS-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JOSE ORTIZ-BARRAGAN,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                    Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 21, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Ortiz-Barragan appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the five-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of his

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Ortiz-Barragan contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing

      *
             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).
to address his non-frivolous mitigation arguments in support of a concurrent

sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608
F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record

reflects that the district court considered Ortiz-Barragan’s arguments, but believed

that a consecutive sentence was warranted in light of Ortiz-Barragan’s immigration

history and significant breach of the court’s trust, as well as the need to deter. The

court’s explanation was sufficient. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59

(2007). Contrary to Ortiz-Barragan’s contention, the court was not required to

address specifically each of his mitigating arguments. See United States v. Perez-

Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    19-50002