United States of America v. Brian Cecilio Rodriguez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BRIAN CECILIO RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50361
D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00219-PA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Brian Cecilio Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and aggravated identity theft, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* 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
SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-50361
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain the sentence, specifically the disparity between Rodriguez’s 30-month
sentence and his co-defendant’s 25-month sentence. The district court adequately
explained the reasons for Rodriguez’s low-end sentence. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court was not
required to “tick off each of the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors to show that it ha[d]
considered them.” Id. Nor did Rodriguez raise arguments that would have
warranted a more fulsome explanation. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
356-58 (2007).
To the extent Rodriguez argues that his sentence has resulted in an
unwarranted disparity with his co-defendant, the record belies this contention.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --