United States of America v. ROBERT COTA, Jr.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT COTA, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-50094
D.C. Nos.
3:11-cr-04153-WQH-10
3:11-cr-04153-WQH
Southern District of California,
San Diego
ORDER
Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
The memorandum disposition filed on May 16, 2023 is amended as follows:
On page 2, after the citation sentence that begins with <See Chavez-Meza v. United
States>, add < Moreover, Cota expressly referred to Dr. Bonham’s declaration in his
motion for reconsideration, which the court denied.>.
With this amendment, the panel voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing.
The petition for panel rehearing, Dkt. 58, is DENIED. No further petitions
for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.
FILED
JUL 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT COTA, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-50094
D.C. Nos.
3:11-cr-04153-WQH-10
3:11-cr-04153-WQH
AMENDED
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 10, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Robert Cota, Jr. appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence
reduction and subsequent motion for reconsideration. This Court has jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews for abuse of discretion. United States v. Aruda,
993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021); Do Sung Uhm v. Humana, Inc., 620 F.3d 1134,
* 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).
FILED
JUL 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 2 of 4 --

2
1140 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
1. When a party “raises a specific, nonfrivolous argument tethered to a
relevant § 3553(a) factor[,] then the judge should normally explain why he accepts
or rejects the party’s position.” United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th
Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). The district court adequately did so here. The court
acknowledged Cota’s arguments in favor of reduction, and concluded that “in light
of the significant departure applied by the Court at the time of sentencing, the
seriousness of the offenses,” and Cota’s history and characteristics, reducing the
“sentence to time served would fail to protect the public, and fail to afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct.” See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959,
1965–67 (2018) (upholding use of form order); United States v. Wilson, 8 F.4th 970,
977 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (finding “minimal explanation” adequate).
Moreover, Cota expressly referred to Dr. Bonham’s declaration in his motion for
reconsideration, which the court denied. Having evaluated Cota’s arguments under
the § 3553(a) factors in both its original order denying sentence reduction and in its
order denying reconsideration, the court was not required to explicitly reject every
argument. See United States v. Plascencia-Orozco, 852 F.3d 910, 928 (9th Cir.
2017) (holding that the district court’s failure to “directly address” two factors was
not an abuse of discretion where other factors sufficiently supported the sentence
imposed).

-- 3 of 4 --

3
2. Because the district court’s evaluation of the § 3553(a) factors
independently justified denying sentence reduction, we need not consider whether
Cota established the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” also required under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 945–48 (9th
Cir. 2022).
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --