Court Opinion

ID: 4370457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-02-22 21:00:51.897319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:15.988390
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    18-10232

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:11-cr-02325-JGZ-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
EMANUEL GERARDO COTA-RUIZ,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 19, 2019**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

      Emanuel Gerardo Cota-Ruiz appeals from the district court’s order denying

his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      The district court denied Cota-Ruiz’s motion for a sentence reduction on two

      *
             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).
grounds: (1) Cota-Ruiz was ineligible for a reduction under section 3582(c)(2),

and (2) even if he were eligible, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not

warrant a reduction. We need not determine whether Cota-Ruiz is eligible for a

reduction because, even assuming he is eligible, the district court did not abuse its

discretion by concluding that a reduction was not warranted in light of the totality

of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offense, Cota-Ruiz’s role as

a leader, and his willingness to use violence. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.
817, 826–27 (2010) (sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2) is only available

if defendant is eligible for a reduction and district court determines a reduction is

warranted under the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the circumstances of

the case); United States v. Chaney, 581 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009)

(discretionary denials of sentence reduction motions are reviewed for abuse of

discretion).

      Cota-Ruiz also argues that the district court failed to address explicitly his

arguments in favor of a sentence reduction. Assuming “district courts have

equivalent duties when initially sentencing a defendant and when later modifying

the sentence,” it is apparent from the record as a whole that the court properly

considered the section 3553(a) factors, as well as Cota-Ruiz’s arguments, in

rendering its decision. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965

(2018). The court was not required to provide a more detailed explanation of its

                                           2                                    18-10232
reasoning. See id. at 1966-67.

      AFFIRMED.

                                 3   18-10232