United States v. Bartolo Rodriguez-Coronado , 540 F. App'x 765 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10555
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:12-cr-50090-RCC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
BARTOLO RODRIGUEZ-CORONADO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding **
Submitted September 24, 2013 ***
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Bartolo Rodriguez-Coronado appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the six-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Ancer L. Haggerty, Senior United States District
Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rodriguez-Coronado contends that the district court erred by ordering his
revocation sentence to run consecutively to his sentence for illegal reentry. He
argues that U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) creates a presumption that the court impose a
concurrent sentence when a deportable alien is sentenced for violating supervised
release. We disagree. Section 5D1.1(c) concerns the imposition of a term of
supervised release, not the sentence to be imposed upon revocation. See U.S.S.G.
§ 5D1.1(c) (2011). Contrary to Rodriguez-Coronado’s argument, the Guidelines
recommend that the court impose a consecutive sentence for a supervised release
violation. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).
Rodriguez-Coronado next contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable because it creates unwarranted sentencing disparities. Contrary to his
claim, Rodriguez-Castro is not similarly situated to defendants who are not serving
terms of supervised release. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing Rodriguez-Coronado’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)
sentencing factors, the consecutive sentence is substantively reasonable. See id.AFFIRMED.
2 12-10555