United States of America v. Jaime Fregoso-Rodriguez

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
JAIME FREGOSO-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50168
D.C. No. 3:06-cr-00263-GT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gordon Thompson, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Fregoso-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
Fregoso-Rodriguez contends that the court procedurally erred at sentencing and
imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. We review unpreserved claims of
FILED
DEC 31 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-50168 2
procedural error for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d
1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for
abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Fregoso-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to appreciate its discretion under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85
(2007), to deviate from the Sentencing Guidelines based on policy grounds. The
district court entertained Fregoso-Rodriguez’s policy-based arguments in favor of a
variance and implicitly rejected them. Absent some contrary indication in the
record, we assume that district judges understand the law. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Fregoso-Rodriguez also contends that the district court failed to explain the
sentence sufficiently and, in particular, to respond adequately to his mitigating
arguments. However, the issues at sentencing were “conceptually simple,” and the
record makes clear that the district judge considered the parties’ arguments; no
more was required. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007). There
was no plain error.
Fregoso-Rodriguez finally contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

-- 2 of 3 --

12-50168 3
§ 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552
U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --