United States of America v. Francis R. Casildo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FRANCIS R. CASILDO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-30240
D.C. No. 4:18-cr-00175-BLW-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Francis R. Casildo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 235-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for possession
with intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to distribute a controlled
substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (C) and 846. We have
* 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).
FILED
JAN 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-30240
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Casildo contends that the district court abused its discretion by placing
undue weight on the need for deterrence to the exclusion of the other 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality
of the circumstances, including the need to protect the public and the seriousness
of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-
Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various
factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). Moreover,
contrary to Casildo’s contention, the record reflects that the district court
considered all of the § 3553(a) factors and thoroughly explained its decision to
impose the 235-month sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992
(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“The district court need not tick off each of the
§ 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --