United States of America v. FRANCISCO JAVIER RODRIGUEZ, AKA Javier LNU

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANCISCO JAVIER RODRIGUEZ,
AKA Javier LNU,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-50313
D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00668-MMM-23
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 3, 2009 **
Pasadena, California
Before: T.G. NELSON, BYBEE and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Javier Rodriguez appeals the district court’s imposition of a 168-
month sentence and $625,000 fine for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
FILED
NOV 18 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

841(b)(1)(A), and 846. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
affirm.
The district court’s determination that Rodriguez had not accepted
responsibility, and therefore did not qualify for a three-level deduction in offense
level, was not clearly erroneous because of Rodriguez’s intervening drug-
trafficking conduct. See United States v. Cooper, 912 F.2d 344, 346 (9th Cir.
1990). Moreover, the total sentence imposed was reasonable under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) because the district court relied on multiple factors, including
Rodriguez’s comparatively greater role in the drug conspiracy and the inability of
the sentencing guidelines to capture the totality of Rodriguez’s drug-trafficking
conduct. United States v. Saeteurn, 504 F.3d 1175, 1181 (9th Cir. 2007). The
district court’s imposition of a $625,000 fine was reasonable given the financial
information the district court had before it. United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d
1235, 1239 (9th Cir. 2009).
Finally, the government’s sentencing position was not plainly erroneous
because the government’s obligations under the plea agreement were not triggered
unless Rodriguez accepted responsibility. See United States v. Maldonado, 215
F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --