United States v. Mario Alston

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 19, 2023
• Docket: 22-10289
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-10289

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00113-CDS-EJY-1

v. MEMORANDUM* MARIO DEMARLO ALSTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Cristina D. Silva, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Mario Demarlo Alston appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

coercion and enticement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a). 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). Alston contends that his stipulated sentence is substantively unreasonable

because the parties anticipated a lower Guidelines range and because the court

gave undue weight to his criminal history and marijuana use. We are unpersuaded

by the government’s argument that Alston waived this claim, but we conclude that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Alston’s sentence. See

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines, 87-month

sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature of the offense and Alston’s

criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-

Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various

factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

We decline to consider Alston’s challenge to the computer use enhancement

because it is unsupported by any argument. See United States v. Williamson, 439

F.3d 1125, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2006) (issues raised in brief but not supported by

argument are abandoned).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-10289