Opinion
No. 19-50002
05-28-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE ORTIZ-BARRAGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:18-cr-07170-DMS-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Jose Ortiz-Barragan appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the five-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ortiz-Barragan contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his non-frivolous mitigation arguments in support of a concurrent sentence. 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. The record reflects that the district court considered Ortiz-Barragan's arguments, but believed that a consecutive sentence was warranted in light of Ortiz-Barragan's immigration history and significant breach of the court's trust, as well as the need to deter. The court's explanation was sufficient. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007). Contrary to Ortiz-Barragan's contention, the court was not required to address specifically each of his mitigating arguments. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.