United States v. Paul Mata

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 12, 2023
• Docket: 21-50301
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 12 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-50301

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 5:19-cr-00214-RGK-1

v. MEMORANDUM* PAUL RICKY MATA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Paul Ricky Mata appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for mail

fraud, wire fraud, making false statements in bankruptcy, concealing assets in

bankruptcy, and making false oath and accounts in bankruptcy, in violation of 18

* 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). U.S.C. §§ 2(b), 1341, 1343, and 152(1)-(3). We vacate Mata’s sentence and

remand for resentencing.

Mata contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain

the sentence adequately, including what standard of proof it applied to the amount

of loss determination under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), what evidence it relied on to

make that determination, and why it selected the 168-month sentence. The

government agrees that “the district court’s brief explanation for its sentencing

decision may not fully have met the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) or Fed.

R. Crim. P. 32(i).” Nevertheless, it argues that remand is not required because

Mata cannot show that the error affected his substantial rights. We disagree. The

record—which does not reflect the district court’s rationale for accepting the

presentence report’s loss calculation over Mata’s much lower calculation, or for

concluding that 168 months was “the appropriate sentence”—is not adequate to

permit meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992

(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Without an adequate sentencing explanation, we cannot

determine whether the district court correctly calculated the amount of loss or

adequately considered the parties’ arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors in selecting the sentence. Thus, resentencing is required. See

United States v. Doe, 705 F.3d 1134, 1154-56 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that the

district court’s procedural violations, including its failure to expressly rule on the

2 21-50301 defendant’s objections to the Guidelines calculation, amounted to plain error).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Mata’s arguments that the loss

calculation and resulting Guidelines range were incorrectly determined, or that his

sentence is substantively unreasonable. We also do not reach Mata’s challenges,

made for the first time on appeal, to supervised release conditions 4 and 5. He is

free to raise those arguments upon resentencing if the district court elects to

reimpose those conditions.

VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.

3 21-50301