USA V. MIGUEL ORTEGA-RODRIGUEZ, No. 21-50156 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 20 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-50156 D.C. No. 3:20-cr-10140-BAS-1 v. MIGUEL ORTEGA-RODRIGUEZ, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 12, 2022** Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Miguel Ortega-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Ortega-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred and * 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). violated due process by failing to afford him the opportunity to be heard as to whether his admitted violation warranted revocation. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. In light of the court’s statements at sentencing, at which it permitted Ortega-Rodriguez to allocute and rejected his request for a fully concurrent revocation sentence, Ortega-Rodriguez has not shown a reasonable probability that, absent the alleged error, the district court would have elected not to revoke supervised release. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008). Ortega-Rodriguez next argues that the district court erred by failing to explain its reasons for the revocation sentence and to respond to his mitigating arguments. However, the court acknowledged Ortega-Rodriguez’s family-related mitigating arguments and explained that Ortega-Rodriguez’s criminal history, and the failure of his prior sentences to deter him, justified an aggregate sentence of 36 months. The court did not plainly err in failing to say more. See ValenciaBarragan, 608 F.3d at 1108; United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th Cir. 2008). AFFIRMED. 2 21-50156
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.
