USA V. LOURDES RODRIGUEZ-CASTILLO, No. 16-10041 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-10041 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00187-APG v. MEMORANDUM* LOURDES GRACIELA RODRIGUEZCASTILLO, a.k.a. Melissa Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Lourdes Graciela Rodriguez-Castillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 57-month custodial sentence and 3-year term of supervised release imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for being a * 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). deported alien found unlawfully in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Rodriguez-Castillo contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain why it was imposing a term of supervised release, despite the contrary directive of U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c). We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1008 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The court sufficiently explained Rodriguez-Castillo’s term of supervised release. See United States v. Castro-Verdugo, 750 F.3d 1065, 1072 (9th Cir. 2014). Rodriguez-Castillo also contends that her 57-month custodial sentence and 3-year term of supervised release are substantively unreasonable. The custodial sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Rodriguez-Castillo’s criminal and immigration history. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 cmt. n.8; Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the term of supervised release as an added measure of deterrence and protection. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5; United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2012). AFFIRMED. 2 16-10041
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.
