USA V. RODERICK COLE, No. 16-10230 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-10230 D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00074-LRH v. MEMORANDUM * RODERICK COLE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Roderick Cole appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(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). Cole contends that the district court procedurally erred by imposing an above-Guidelines sentence based on his need for rehabilitation, and by failing to consider and address his mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), and conclude that there is none. The record belies Cole’s contention that the district court imposed the sentence in order to promote his rehabilitation. See Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 334 (2011) (“A court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison[.]”). Furthermore, the record reflects that the district court considered Cole’s arguments and adequately explained the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357-58 (2007). Cole also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court allegedly gave excessive weight to his criminal history and the “leniency” of his prior state court sentences. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The aboveGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). AFFIRMED. 2 16-10230
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.
