United States v. Rabon

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: 24-7066
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-7066 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:23-cr-01065-TWR-1 v.

ANNA RABON, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 17, 2025 Pasadena, California

Before: CLIFTON, BYBEE, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Concurrence by Judge LEE.

Anna Rabon appeals her sentence for violating the conditions of her

probation from the Southern District of California, arguing that the district court

erred in failing to calculate her probation revocation range, failing to calculate her

underlying offense range, and failing to explain its reasons for varying from the

ranges. We reverse and remand for sentencing.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. We review the district court’s sentence for plain error because Rabon did not

adequately preserve her objection before the district court. See United States v.

Hackett, 123 F.4th 1005, 1010-11 (9th Cir. 2024). Under, Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedural 52(b) a “plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered

even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”

“[A] district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly

calculating the applicable Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49

(2007). “Although the Sentencing Guidelines are merely advisory,” United States

v. Joey, 845 F.3d 1291, 1295 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220, 245 (2005)), “[a] mistake in calculating the recommended Guidelines

sentencing range is a significant procedural error that requires us to remand for

resentencing,” United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir.

2011) (per curiam).

The district court’s failure to calculate the underlying offense range, failure

to consider the probation revocation range, and failure to explain its departure from

these ranges constituted plain error. First, at the November 2024 sentencing

hearing, the district court misstated the applicable range for Rabon’s underlying

offense at 57 months, despite finding at the original December 2023 sentencing

hearing that the applicable range was 37-46 months. Second, the district court

failed to announce and consider the applicable 3-9 month probation revocation

2 guidelines under Chapter 7 at sentencing. We are not persuaded by the

government’s argument that the Violation Report’s existence alone, without any

other reference to the guidelines in the record, is adequate to establish that the

district court considered the guidelines. Third, the district court failed to explain

whether sentencing Rabon to 24 months in custody was a variance upward from

the 3-9 month probation revocation range or a variance downward from the 37-46

month underlying offense range. On remand, the district court may consider

clarifying the two relevant guidelines and articulating its rationale for the sentence.

Under the circumstances, with the basis of the district court’s sentencing

sufficiently ambiguous, we conclude that there is a “reasonable probability” that

the outcome of the sentencing would have been different if the guideline ranges

were properly calculated and articulated. Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585

U.S. 129, 134-35 (2018). While it is true that the ultimate sentence fell between the

probation revocation range and the underlying offense range, without discussing

the correct guideline ranges on the record, it is difficult to discern the district

court’s intentions.

Accordingly, we hold that these errors affected Rabon’s substantial rights

and constituted plain error. Rabon’s sentence is vacated, and this case is remanded

for resentencing.

SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.

3 FILED OCT 3 2025 No. 24-7066, United States v. Rabon MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK LEE, Circuit Judge, concurring. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

I agree with the majority that we should vacate the sentence and remand for

resentencing but for a slightly different reason. Based on the record, I believe we

can reasonably infer that the district court relied on the underlying offense range, not

the probation revocation range, in sentencing her to 24 months. See United States v.

Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1104 (9th Cir. 2009) (“adequate explanation in some

cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole”). But the district

court erroneously stated that the low range of the underlying offense was 57 months

when in fact it was 37 months. I would thus remand for resentencing.