USA V. MARIO RODRIGUEZ-MALDONADO, No. 14-10157 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 14-10157 14-10158 Plaintiff - Appellee, v. D.C. Nos. 4:13-cr-01606-CKJ 4:11-cr-00195-CKJ MARIO RODRIGUEZ-MALDONADO, a.k.a. Mario Maldonado Rodriguez, a.k.a. Pablo Ochoa-Sanchez, Defendant - Appellant. MEMORANDUM* Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Marvin E. Aspen, District Judge, Presiding** Submitted February 17, 2015**** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Marvin E. Aspen, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. **** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). In these consolidated appeals, Mario Rodriguez-Maldonado appeals from the district court’s judgments and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and the 18-month, partially concurrent sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Rodriguez-Maldonado contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide a sufficient explanation for the sentences imposed, including its reasons for rejecting his arguments in favor of a lower sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and find none. The record demonstrates that the court heard Rodriguez-Maldonado’s arguments in mitigation, and its explanation of the sentence was adequate. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). AFFIRMED. 2 14-10157 & 14-10158

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.