USA V. SHAWN RODRIGUEZ, No. 15-30093 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 23 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-30093 D.C. No. 4:01-cr-00099-SEH v. MEMORANDUM* SHAWN RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Shawn Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Rodriguez’s request for oral argument, set forth in his reply brief, is denied. Rodriguez argues that the district court erred by failing to account for his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts and instead denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion based exclusively on his criminal and post-sentencing disciplinary history. We review for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1555 (9th Cir. 2013). Considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Rodriguez’s in-custody disciplinary record, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See id. at 1159 (“While reasonable jurists might disagree as to whether [defendant’s] positive factors warranted a reduced sentence, mere disagreement does not amount to an abuse of discretion.”). In light of this holding, we decline to address Rodriguez’s argument that the district court should have calculated the amended Guidelines range based on a lower drug quantity. AFFIRMED. 2 15-30093

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.