United States v. Rodriguez-Gomez
This text of 131 F. App'x 594 (United States v. Rodriguez-Gomez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Jose Arturo Rodriguez-Gomez appeals the district court’s imposition of consecutive sentences for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and his previous conditions of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Rodriguez-Gomez did not lodge any objection at the time of sentencing, we review for plain error, see United States v. Steffen, 251 F.3d 1273, 1275-76 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
Rodriguez-Gomez contends that the district court erred in imposing a consecutive sentence because it failed to consider the “extraordinary circumstances” that motivated Rodriguez-Gomez to violate the terms of his supervised release. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in sentencing Rodriguez-Gomez to consecutive sentences. See Steffen, 251 F.3d at 1278-79; United States v. Kim, 196 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
131 F. App'x 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rodriguez-gomez-ca9-2005.