UNITED STATES v. ROHRBACK (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-27No. No. 19-50323

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding both the two-level aggravating role adjustment and the 200-month sentence as supported by the record and reasonable under applicable sentencing law.

Alan Rohrback, Jr. pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and received a 200-month sentence. On appeal, he challenged two aspects of his sentencing: first, the application of a two-level enhancement for an aggravating role based on his alleged authority over a co-defendant, and second, the overall reasonableness of his 200-month sentence, arguing that the district court overweighted aggravating factors and underweighted his mitigating circumstances.

The appellate court found that the record contained sufficient evidence supporting an inference that Rohrback exercised authority over his co-defendant during the offense, making the role enhancement appropriate. The court also determined that the 200-month sentence was substantively reasonable when considered against the applicable sentencing factors and the totality of circumstances, noting that the district court had accounted for Rohrback's mitigating circumstances even while varying below the sentencing guidelines.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether evidence supported a two-level enhancement for aggravating role under the sentencing guidelines
Whether a 200-month sentence was substantively reasonable given sentencing factors and mitigating circumstances

Procedural posture

Rohrback appealed from the district court's judgment and sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Alan Rohrback, Jr., appeals from the district courts judgment and challenges the 200-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rohrback first contends that, because the record did not show that he exercised any authority or control over his co-defendant, the district court erred by imposing a two-level aggravating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The record as a whole, however, supports the inference that Rohrback had authority over his co-defendant in executing the offense. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying the adjustment.

See United States v. Herrera, 974 F.3d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 2020) (stating standard of review and explaining that “[o]nly guideline applications that are illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in the record are an abuse of discretion” (internal quotations omitted)).

Rohrback next contends that the 200-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court placed too much weight on the aggravating factors and the 180-month sentence it imposed on Rohrbacks co-defendant, and gave insufficient weight to his mitigating circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court accounted for Rohrbacks mitigating circumstances when it elected to vary below the Guidelines range, and the resulting sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. We disagree with Rohrbacks assertion that the district court used an impermissible factor to justify the enhancement, thus requiring de novo review.