United States v. Padilla

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 22, 2023
• Docket: 23-425
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-425 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:19-cr-01611-JAH-1 Southern District of California, San v. Diego ALEXIS CASTILLO PADILLA, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Alexis Castillo Padilla appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. 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). Castillo contends that the district court erred by (1) failing to explain the

above-Guidelines sentence by reference to factors not already accounted for by the

Guidelines; (2) failing to provide a written statement of reasons; and (3) relying on

a clearly erroneous fact regarding his prior conviction. Though we agree with the

government that these claims are reviewed for plain error, see United States v.

Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), we would affirm under

any standard. The record of the sentencing hearing reflects that the court

thoroughly explained its reasons for the upward variance, including why the

Guidelines range did not adequately reflect Castillo’s conduct. See United States

v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2013) (sentencing court may vary

upward on the basis of factors already incorporated into the Guidelines calculation

if it concludes that the Guidelines do not sufficiently account for the harm caused

by the defendant’s conduct). Thus, contrary to Castillo’s claim, he was not

prejudiced by the court’s alleged failure to provide a written statement of reasons.1

Nor was Castillo prejudiced by the court’s misstatement as to the length of his

prior sentence, which was immaterial to its sentencing decision. The court did not

procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc).

1 We do not decide whether the district court completed a written statement of reasons form.

2 23-425 Castillo also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In

light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the

circumstances, however, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Notwithstanding the parties’

recommendations for a lower sentence, the court properly exercised its broad

sentencing discretion in concluding that an above-Guidelines sentence was

warranted in this case. See United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 423 (9th Cir.

2011).

AFFIRMED.

3 23-425