NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50361 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00219-PA v. MEMORANDUM* BRIAN CECILIO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Brian Cecilio Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

* 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).

§ 1291, and we affirm.

Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence, specifically the disparity between Rodriguez’s 30-month sentence and his co-defendant’s 25-month sentence. The district court adequately explained the reasons for Rodriguez’s low-end sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court was not required to “tick off each of the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors to show that it ha[d] considered them.” Id. Nor did Rodriguez raise arguments that would have warranted a more fulsome explanation. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-58 (2007).

To the extent Rodriguez argues that his sentence has resulted in an unwarranted disparity with his co-defendant, the record belies this contention.

AFFIRMED.

2 17-50361