United States of America v. Alexis Castillo Padilla

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEXIS CASTILLO PADILLA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-425
D.C. No.
3:19-cr-01611-JAH-1
Southern District of California, San
Diego
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Alexis Castillo Padilla appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. 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 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-425
Castillo contends that the district court erred by (1) failing to explain the
above-Guidelines sentence by reference to factors not already accounted for by the
Guidelines; (2) failing to provide a written statement of reasons; and (3) relying on
a clearly erroneous fact regarding his prior conviction. Though we agree with the
government that these claims are reviewed for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), we would affirm under
any standard. The record of the sentencing hearing reflects that the court
thoroughly explained its reasons for the upward variance, including why the
Guidelines range did not adequately reflect Castillo’s conduct. See United States
v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2013) (sentencing court may vary
upward on the basis of factors already incorporated into the Guidelines calculation
if it concludes that the Guidelines do not sufficiently account for the harm caused
by the defendant’s conduct). Thus, contrary to Castillo’s claim, he was not
prejudiced by the court’s alleged failure to provide a written statement of reasons.1
Nor was Castillo prejudiced by the court’s misstatement as to the length of his
prior sentence, which was immaterial to its sentencing decision. The court did not
procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc).
1 We do not decide whether the district court completed a written statement of
reasons form.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-425
Castillo also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In
light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, however, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Notwithstanding the parties’
recommendations for a lower sentence, the court properly exercised its broad
sentencing discretion in concluding that an above-Guidelines sentence was
warranted in this case. See United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 423 (9th Cir.
2011).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --