United States of America v. Jose Ortiz-Barragan

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSE ORTIZ-BARRAGAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-50002
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
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
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
* 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).
FILED
MAY 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-50002
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.

-- 2 of 2 --