United States of America v. FAANIMO PAOPAO, AKA Neem

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FAANIMO PAOPAO, AKA Neem,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-10019
D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00744-DKW-3
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Faanimo Paopao appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 180-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for several
offenses related to the distribution of methamphetamine. 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).
FILED
NOV 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-10019
Paopao contends that the district court relied on erroneous findings of fact
when it imposed a 2-point enhancement to her offense level under U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.1(c). The record does not support her contention. In light of the evidence
adduced at the evidentiary hearing, the court’s findings that Paopao served as a
local manager for the drug conspiracy, directed the efforts of a codefendant, and
developed a local market for the conspiracy’s drugs were not clearly erroneous.
See United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763, 779 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing
clear error review of factual findings). Moreover, the district court’s application of
the aggravating role enhancement to Paopao was not an abuse of discretion. See
United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc)
(stating standard of review for the district court’s application of Guidelines to the
facts).
Paopao also argues that the court did not adequately consider the need to
avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities with her codefendants. However, the
court expressly acknowledged 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), and reasonably concluded
that, although it had imposed 170-month sentences on some of Paopao’s
codefendants, a 180-month sentence was warranted because Paopao was uniquely
situated given her poor performance on pretrial release. In light of the totality of
the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
below-Guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --