United States v. Adrian Solarzano , 492 F. App'x 820 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50057
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00445-DSF-24
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ADRIAN PHILLIP SOLARZANO, aka
Mr. Turtle, aka Turtle,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 7, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Adrian Solarzano pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy in
violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 1962(d), one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess
*
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).
with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. ' 846, one
count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and
ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced
Solarzano to concurrent prison terms totaling 293 months, to be served
consecutively to the remaining nine months of an undischarged state court
sentence.
Solarzano’s only argument on appeal is that the district court erred by
ordering the federal sentences to run consecutively to the state court sentence. His
arguments regarding § 5G1.3(b) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which
were raised for the first time in the reply brief, are waived. United States v.
Anderson, 472 F.3d 662, 668 (9th Cir. 2006). And his reliance on § 5G1.3(c) does
not help him, because that subsection gives the district court discretion to impose
either consecutive or concurrent sentences. United States v. Fifield, 432 F.3d
1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 2005).
In any event, the Guidelines are advisory. United States v. Ameline, 409
F.3d 1073, 1074 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). The district court acted within its
2
discretion by considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in deciding to
impose the consecutive sentences. Fifield, 432 F.3d at 1064–65.
AFFIRMED.
3