Court Opinion

ID: 2782256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-02-25 23:02:00.446825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:01:57.019630
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FEB 25 2015

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        Nos. 14-10157
                                                      14-10158
              Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                             D.C. Nos. 4:13-cr-01606-CKJ
                                                           4:11-cr-00195-CKJ
MARIO RODRIGUEZ-MALDONADO,
a.k.a. Mario Maldonado Rodriguez, a.k.a.
Pablo Ochoa-Sanchez,

              Defendant - Appellant.             MEMORANDUM*

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Marvin E. Aspen, District Judge, Presiding**

                          Submitted February 17, 2015****

Before:       O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

       *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
       **
             The Honorable Marvin E. Aspen, Senior United States District Judge
for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
       ****
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      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.

                                          2                           14-10157 & 14-10158