United States v. Anthony Rodriguez

MEMORANDUM

Anthony Rodriguez appeals the sentence imposed by the district court for two counts of distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). Rodriguez argues that the district judge erred by applying a career offender enhancement based in part on an offense he committed when he was 17 years old. The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

We review sentencing decisions, “whether inside or outside the Guidelines range,” for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 , 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). First, we “ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error.” Id. at 51 , 128 S.Ct. 586 . Then, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard, we “consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence” based on “the totality of the circumstances.” Id. We do not apply a presumption of reasonableness for sentences within the Guidelines range, but we recognize that a correctly calculated Guidelines sentence “ ‘will usually be reasonable.’ ” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 , 127 S.Ct. 2456 , 168 L.Ed.2d…