United States of America v. Ulrick Luis Rodriguez

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ULRICK LUIS RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10436
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00131-LRH-
VPC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 15, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Ulrick Luis Rodriguez challenges the district court’s imposition of
sentence. He asserts a violation of Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
FILED
JUL 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district
court. We review the district court’s compliance with Rule 32 de novo. See
United States v. Saeteurn, 504 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007).
The district court complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32
when it determined that it would not decide the dispute over Rodriguez’s
immigration status and would not consider Rodriguez’s immigration status when
sentencing him. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B), (C); see also Saeteurn, 504 F.3d
at 1181. The district court discussed at length the reasons for the sentence
imposed, including its concern with Rodriguez’s criminal history and the
dangerousness of his current offense, without referencing Rodriguez’s immigration
status. Although the district court later adopted two paragraphs from the
presentence report stating that Rodriguez was in the United States illegally, the
record reflects that Rodriguez’s immigration status did not “affect the temporal
term of the sentence the district court impose[d]. . . .” Saeteurn, 504 F.3d at 1181.
Moreover, because the district court gave ample reasons to support the sentence
imposed, even indicating that an upward variance would be appropriate were the
Guideline ramge lower, any error by the district court was harmless. See Williams
v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --