NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-50156

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:20-cr-10140-BAS-1 v. MIGUEL ORTEGA-RODRIGUEZ, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2022** Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Miguel Ortega-Rodriguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ortega-Rodriguez contends that the district court procedurally erred and

*

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). violated due process by failing to afford him the opportunity to be heard as to whether his admitted violation warranted revocation. 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. In light of the court’s statements at sentencing, at which it permitted Ortega-Rodriguez to allocute and rejected his request for a fully concurrent revocation sentence, Ortega-Rodriguez has not shown a reasonable probability that, absent the alleged error, the district court would have elected not to revoke supervised release. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

Ortega-Rodriguez next argues that the district court erred by failing to explain its reasons for the revocation sentence and to respond to his mitigating arguments. However, the court acknowledged Ortega-Rodriguez’s family-related mitigating arguments and explained that Ortega-Rodriguez’s criminal history, and the failure of his prior sentences to deter him, justified an aggregate sentence of 36 months. The court did not plainly err in failing to say more. See Valencia- Barragan, 608 F.3d at 1108; United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

2 21-50156