NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10232
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:11-cr-02325-JGZ-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EMANUEL GERARDO COTA-RUIZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Emanuel Gerardo Cota-Ruiz appeals from the district court’s order denying
his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court denied Cota-Ruiz’s motion for a sentence reduction on two
*
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).
grounds: (1) Cota-Ruiz was ineligible for a reduction under section 3582(c)(2),
and (2) even if he were eligible, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not
warrant a reduction. We need not determine whether Cota-Ruiz is eligible for a
reduction because, even assuming he is eligible, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by concluding that a reduction was not warranted in light of the totality
of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offense, Cota-Ruiz’s role as
a leader, and his willingness to use violence. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.
817, 826–27 (2010) (sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2) is only available
if defendant is eligible for a reduction and district court determines a reduction is
warranted under the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the circumstances of
the case); United States v. Chaney, 581 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009)
(discretionary denials of sentence reduction motions are reviewed for abuse of
discretion).
Cota-Ruiz also argues that the district court failed to address explicitly his
arguments in favor of a sentence reduction. Assuming “district courts have
equivalent duties when initially sentencing a defendant and when later modifying
the sentence,” it is apparent from the record as a whole that the court properly
considered the section 3553(a) factors, as well as Cota-Ruiz’s arguments, in
rendering its decision. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965
(2018). The court was not required to provide a more detailed explanation of its
2 18-10232
reasoning. See id. at 1966-67.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-10232