United States v. Scovotto

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 18, 2026
• Docket: 24-1996
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-1996 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:22-cr-00306-DSF-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ANTHONY FRANK SCOVOTTO, AKA Franky Pisano, AKA frankypisano93, AKA frankypis, AKA Franky, AKA Frankie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 12, 2026 Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, BADE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Anthony Frank Scovotto pleaded guilty to attempting to produce child

pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). On appeal, he challenges his

sentence, arguing that the district court improperly calculated his Guidelines range

and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. We have jurisdiction under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

1. Assuming the district court improperly calculated Scovotto’s Guidelines

range, any such error was harmless. “An error in calculating a criminal

defendant’s Guidelines range is subject to harmless-error review.” United States v.

Prigan, 8 F.4th 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2021). The district court explained that “the

correct Guidelines range [wa]s in dispute” and calculated the Guidelines ranges

under both the government’s and Scovotto’s calculations. See United States v.

Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curium). The

imposed sentence was within the Guidelines range under Scovotto’s calculations,

and the district court explained its reasons for imposing that sentence adequately,

noting that it would have imposed the same sentence even without grouping

offenses under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2(c).

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 360-month

sentence. “The substantive reasonableness of a district court’s sentence is

reviewed for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Thompson, 130 F.4th 1158,

1164 (9th Cir. 2025). We “should only vacate a sentence if the district court’s

decision not to impose a lesser sentence was ‘illogical, implausible, or without

support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.’” United

States v. Laurienti, 731 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v.

Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010)). The district court adequately

2 24-1996 explained its reasons for sentencing Scovotto to 360 months, and those reasons

have support from the facts in the record. Moreover, the 360-month sentence was

within the Guidelines range under Scovotto’s calculation, and within the

mandatory minimum (300 months) and mandatory maximum (600 months) for the

conviction.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-1996