United States of America v. Mario Rodriguez-Maldonado, a.k.a. Mario Maldonado Rodriguez, a.k.a. Pablo Ochoa-Sanchez

14-10157Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit25 de fev. de 2015

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARIO RODRIGUEZ-MALDONADO,
a.k.a. Mario Maldonado Rodriguez, a.k.a.
Pablo Ochoa-Sanchez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 14-10157
14-10158
D.C. Nos. 4:13-cr-01606-CKJ
4:11-cr-00195-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Marvin E. Aspen, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 17, 2015****
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
FILED
FEB 25 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 Honorable Marvin E. Aspen, Senior United States District Judge
for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
**** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

In these consolidated appeals, Mario Rodriguez-Maldonado appeals from the
district court’s judgments and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry after deportation, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 18-month, partially concurrent sentence
imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rodriguez-Maldonado contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to provide a sufficient explanation for the sentences imposed, including its
reasons for rejecting his arguments in favor of a lower sentence. We review for
plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and
find none. The record demonstrates that the court heard Rodriguez-Maldonado’s
arguments in mitigation, and its explanation of the sentence was adequate. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
14-10157 & 14-10158 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.