United States v. Bartolo Rodriguez-Coronado

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 02 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10555 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:12-cr-50090-RCC v. MEMORANDUM * BARTOLO RODRIGUEZ-CORONADO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding ** Submitted September 24, 2013 *** Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Bartolo Rodriguez-Coronado appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the six-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Ancer L. Haggerty, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Rodriguez-Coronado contends that the district court erred by ordering his revocation sentence to run consecutively to his sentence for illegal reentry. He argues that U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) creates a presumption that the court impose a concurrent sentence when a deportable alien is sentenced for violating supervised release. We disagree. Section 5D1.1(c) concerns the imposition of a term of supervised release, not the sentence to be imposed upon revocation. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) (2011). Contrary to Rodriguez-Coronado’s argument, the Guidelines recommend that the court impose a consecutive sentence for a supervised release violation. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). Rodriguez-Coronado next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it creates unwarranted sentencing disparities. Contrary to his claim, Rodriguez-Castro is not similarly situated to defendants who are not serving terms of supervised release. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Rodriguez-Coronado’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, the consecutive sentence is substantively reasonable. See id. AFFIRMED. 2 12-10555