United States v. Rodriguez

14-1143 United States v. Rodriguez UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 15th day of October, two thousand fifteen. 5 6 PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 Appellee, 14 15 -v.- 14-1143 16 17 EDDIE RODRIGUEZ,* 18 Defendant-Appellant. 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 20 21 FOR APPELLANT: Bruce R. Bryan, Syracuse, New 22 York. 23 * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption as shown above. 1 1 FOR APPELLEE: Alina P. Reynolds, Marc H. 2 Silverman, Assistant United 3 States Attorneys, for Deirdre M. 4 Daly, United States Attorney for 5 the District of Connecticut. 6 7 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 8 Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.). 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 11 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 12 AFFIRMED. 13 14 Defendant-appellant Eddie Rodriguez appeals from a 15 judgment of the United States District Court for the 16 District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.), sentencing him 17 principally to 77 months of imprisonment, after his guilty 18 plea to conspiracy (1) to possess with intent to distribute 19 and (2) to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, in 20 violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. 21 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 22 facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for 23 review. 24 25 Rodriguez argues that his 77-month sentence is 26 substantively unreasonable. The precise sentence chosen by 27 the district court, if within lawful bounds, is reviewed 28 only for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 29 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). That highly deferential standard 30 “provide[s] a backstop for those few cases that, although 31 procedurally correct, would nonetheless damage the 32 administration of justice because the sentence imposed was 33 shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable 34 as a matter of law.” United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 35 123 (2d Cir. 2009). 36 37 Given Rodriguez’s extensive criminal history, his trial 38 counsel’s request for a 77-month sentence, the district 39 court’s careful consideration of the relevant sentencing 40 factors, and the 60-month mandatory minimum, the district 41 court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence of 42 77 months. 43 44 *** 45 46 47 2 1 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in 2 Rodriguez’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment 3 of the district court. 4 5 FOR THE COURT: 6 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 7 3