NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50002
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cr-07170-DMS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSE ORTIZ-BARRAGAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
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).
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 19-50002