Court Opinion

ID: 4313391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-09-18 21:00:25.880004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:21.595297
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 18 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    17-50361

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00219-PA

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
BRIAN CECILIO RODRIGUEZ,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 12, 2018**

Before:      LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Brian Cecilio Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and aggravated identity theft, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

      *
             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).
§ 1291, and we affirm.

      Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

explain the sentence, specifically the disparity between Rodriguez’s 30-month

sentence and his co-defendant’s 25-month sentence. The district court adequately

explained the reasons for Rodriguez’s low-end sentence. See United States v.

Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court was not

required to “tick off each of the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors to show that it ha[d]

considered them.” Id. Nor did Rodriguez raise arguments that would have

warranted a more fulsome explanation. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,

356-58 (2007).

      To the extent Rodriguez argues that his sentence has resulted in an

unwarranted disparity with his co-defendant, the record belies this contention.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    17-50361