United States v. Antoun

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 25-3939
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-3939 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:21-cr-00547-FLA-1 v. MEMORANDUM* CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH ANTOUN, AKA antounchris432@gmail.com, AKA fslcadm@gmail.com,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Christopher Joseph Antoun appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon the second revocation of his

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* 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). Antoun contends the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain

sufficiently why it varied three months above the Guidelines range. The record

refutes this claim. The district court discussed in detail how Antoun’s violations

demonstrated a “pattern of noncompliance and overall resistance to supervision,”

amounting to a “significant breach of the Court’s trust.” It further explained that

Antoun had shown no genuine interest in rehabilitation, that he remains a danger to

the public, and that he had not been deterred by prior sentences. On this record,

“[w]e have no difficulty in discerning the district court’s reasons for imposing the

sentence that it did.” United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635, 637 (9th Cir. 2007).

Antoun next contends the above-Guidelines sentence, which was ordered to

run consecutively to the sentence for his new offense, is substantively

unreasonable because it is longer than necessary to serve the goals of sentencing.

We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of

the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances.

See id.; see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).

AFFIRMED.

2 25-3939