United States v. Rodriguez-Bedolla , 185 F. App'x 198 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-22-2006
USA v. Rodriguez-Bedolla
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3540
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Rodriguez-Bedolla" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 851.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/851
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-3540
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ-BEDOLLA,
Appellant
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 04-cr-00250)
District Judge: Honorable James K. Gardner
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 16, 2006
Before: FISHER, CHAGARES and REAVLEY,* Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 22, 2006)
___________
OPINION
___________
*
The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth
Circuit, sitting by designation.
REAVLEY, Circuit Judge.
Rodriguez-Bedolla appeals his sentence, arguing that he should have been
assigned seven criminal history points rather than nine. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) instructs that
when calculating a defendant’s criminal history, the sentencing court must add two points
“if the defendant committed the instant offense ... while under any criminal justice
sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or
escape status.” Section 4A1.2(m) applies this to violation of warrants. The crux of
Rodriguez-Bedolla’s argument is that the addition of these two criminal history points
was improper because the underlying warrant violated was invalid.
Rodriguez-Bedolla’s guideline range was 37-46 months. Rodriguez-Bedolla was
sentenced to the lowest point in this range, 37 months. This Court has held that it need
not reach an issue when the appellant’s “sentence would be unaffected” even if he were
successful on that point. United States v. Fields, 39 F.3d 439, 447 (3d Cir. 1994). Since
Rodriguez-Bedolla’s guideline range would be unaffected by a reduction of two criminal
history points, Rodriguez-Bedolla would not receive any lesser sentence on remand.
Accordingly, the District Court’s judgment will be affirmed.
2