UNITED STATES v. ORTIZ BARRAGAN (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

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 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, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (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.