United States v. Carlos Ramirez-Rodriguez , 619 F. App'x 655 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             OCT 19 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-50486
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00189-AJB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    CARLOS DANIEL RAMIREZ-
    RODRIGUEZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 14, 2015**
    Before:        SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Carlos Daniel Ramirez-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment
    and challenges the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
    conviction for conspiracy to import controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
    *
    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).
    §§ 952, 960, and 963; and importation of a controlled substance, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 952
     and 960. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we
    affirm.
    First, Ramirez-Rodriguez contends that the district court violated due
    process and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(C) when it relied on
    previously undisclosed evidence about his codefendants’ personal histories at
    sentencing. Because Ramirez-Rodriguez did not object to the use of the evidence
    at the sentencing hearing, we review for plain error. See United States v. Warr,
    
    530 F.3d 1152
    , 1162 (9th Cir. 2008). Ramirez-Rodriguez fails to establish that
    there was plain error affecting his substantial rights, because he cannot show a
    reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the
    court not considered the evidence. See 
    id. at 1163
    .
    Second, Ramirez-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally
    erred by failing to explain adequately the sentence. We review for plain error, see
    United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 
    608 F.3d 1103
    , 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find
    none. The district court sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v.
    Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    , 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
    Finally, Ramirez-Rodriguez contends that his sentence is substantively
    unreasonable in light of the significant mitigating factors he presented at
    2                                   14-50486
    sentencing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ramirez-
    Rodriguez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). The
    below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the
    nature of the offense. See Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                   14-50486
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-50486

Citation Numbers: 619 F. App'x 655

Filed Date: 10/19/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023