United States of America v. Edith Tomasa Rodriguez- Cardenas

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDITH TOMASA RODRIGUEZ-
CARDENAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-50363
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00782-CAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Edith Tomasa Rodriguez-Cardenas appeals from the district court’s
judgment and challenges the nine-month sentence imposed following revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 26 2016
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 2 --

Rodriguez-Cardenas contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to explain the sentence adequately, failing to respond to her mitigating
arguments, and relying on clearly erroneous facts. We review for plain error, see
United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find
none. The record reflects that the district court considered Rodriguez-Cardenas’
mitigating arguments and adequately explained the sentence. See Rita v. United
States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007). Furthermore, contrary to Rodriguez-
Cardenas’ contention, the district court did not rely on clearly erroneous facts at
sentencing.
Rodriguez-Cardenas also contends that the sentence is substantively
unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors she presented at sentencing. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Rodriguez-Cardenas’
sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and
the totality of the circumstances, including Rodriguez-Cardenas’ breach of the
court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058,
1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007) (at a revocation sentencing, breach of trust is an
appropriate sentencing factor).
AFFIRMED.
15-50363 2

-- 2 of 2 --