United States of America v. ALAN ROHRBACK, Jr., AKA A.J., AKA Alan Ray Rohrback, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALAN ROHRBACK, Jr., AKA A.J., AKA
Alan Ray Rohrback, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-50323
D.C. No. 3:18-cr-04218-LAB-4
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Alan Rohrback, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 200-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 846. 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).
FILED
APR 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-50323
Rohrback first contends that, because the record did not show that he
exercised any authority or control over his co-defendant, the district court erred by
imposing a two-level aggravating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The
record as a whole, however, supports the inference that Rohrback had authority
over his co-defendant in executing the offense. Accordingly, the district court did
not abuse its discretion by applying the adjustment.1 See United States v. Herrera,
974 F.3d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 2020) (stating standard of review and explaining that
“[o]nly guideline applications that are illogical, implausible, or without support in
inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record are an abuse of discretion”
(internal quotations omitted)).
Rohrback next contends that the 200-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable because the district court placed too much weight on the aggravating
factors and the 180-month sentence it imposed on Rohrback’s co-defendant, and
gave insufficient weight to his mitigating circumstances. The district court did not
abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court
accounted for Rohrback’s mitigating circumstances when it elected to vary below
the Guidelines range, and the resulting sentence is substantively reasonable in light
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances.
1 We disagree with Rohrback’s assertion that the district court used an
impermissible factor to justify the enhancement, thus requiring de novo review.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-50323
See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --