United States v. Takanabe

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 1, 2025
• Docket: 24-900
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 1 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-900 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 8:23-cr-00082-MEMF-1 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM TAKANABE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2025**

Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

William Takanabe appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 80-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possessing

child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2). 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). Takanabe contends that the district court procedurally erred by basing the

sentence on a clearly erroneous fact concerning his recidivism risk and by

insufficiently explaining its reasons for the sentence. Because Takanabe did not

raise these claims in the district court, we review them for plain error. See United

States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010).

The record does not support Takanabe’s claim that the district court

incorrectly found he had a moderate recidivism risk. Instead, the court found that

Takanabe’s risk of reoffending was “not zero” given his one moderate score and

the limitations of the tests themselves, which were based on self-reported data and

occurred before he was alleged to have violated supervision. This finding is not

clearly erroneous. Moreover, the court’s concern with Takanabe’s recidivism risk

was just one of the factors it considered and discussed in explaining its reasons for

the sentence. Takanabe has not shown a “reasonable probability” that he would

have received a shorter sentence had the court discussed his other recidivism

scores or said more to explain why it was imposing a within-Guidelines sentence.

See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

Takanabe also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in

light of the lower sentences recommended by probation and the government, as

well as his mitigating circumstances and the need to avoid sentencing disparities

with other similarly situated defendants. The district court considered these factors,

2 24-900 however, and did not abuse its discretion in denying Takanabe’s request for a

downward variance. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-

Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the harm to the children

depicted in the photographs and videos. See United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d

1110, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

3 24-900