United States of America v. Carlos Daniel Ramirez- Rodriguez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS DANIEL RAMIREZ-
RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-50486
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00189-AJB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Daniel Ramirez-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for conspiracy to import controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
FILED
OCT 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

§§ 952, 960, and 963; and importation of a controlled substance, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
First, Ramirez-Rodriguez contends that the district court violated due
process and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(C) when it relied on
previously undisclosed evidence about his codefendants’ personal histories at
sentencing. Because Ramirez-Rodriguez did not object to the use of the evidence
at the sentencing hearing, we review for plain error. See United States v. Warr,
530 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008). Ramirez-Rodriguez fails to establish that
there was plain error affecting his substantial rights, because he cannot show a
reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the
court not considered the evidence. See id. at 1163.
Second, Ramirez-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally
erred by failing to explain adequately the sentence. We review for plain error, see
United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find
none. The district court sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Finally, Ramirez-Rodriguez contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable in light of the significant mitigating factors he presented at
14-50486 2

-- 2 of 3 --

sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ramirez-
Rodriguez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the
nature of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
14-50486 3

-- 3 of 3 --