United States of America v. Lourdes Graciela Rodriguez- Castillo, a.k.a. Melissa Rodriguez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LOURDES GRACIELA RODRIGUEZ-
CASTILLO, a.k.a. Melissa Rodriguez,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10041
D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00187-APG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Lourdes Graciela Rodriguez-Castillo appeals from the district court’s
judgment and challenges the 57-month custodial sentence and 3-year term of
supervised release imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for being a
FILED
DEC 21 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 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rodriguez-Castillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to explain why it was imposing a term of supervised release, despite the
contrary directive of U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). We review for plain error, see United
States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1008 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none.
The court sufficiently explained Rodriguez-Castillo’s term of supervised release.
See United States v. Castro-Verdugo, 750 F.3d 1065, 1072 (9th Cir. 2014).
Rodriguez-Castillo also contends that her 57-month custodial sentence and
3-year term of supervised release are substantively unreasonable. The custodial
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Rodriguez-Castillo’s
criminal and immigration history. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.8; Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing the term of supervised release as an added measure of
deterrence and protection. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5; United States v.
Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
16-10041 2

-- 2 of 2 --