United States v. Emanuel Cota-Ruiz

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 22, 2019
• Docket: 18-10232
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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