United States of America v. Ernesto Traslavina

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ERNESTO TRASLAVINA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-10198
D.C. No.
2:87-cr-00166-APG-LRL-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ernesto Traslavina appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his
motion to discharge his fine and motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Traslavina contends that the district court should have discharged his fine
* 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
MAR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-10198
because it was a condition of supervision and his supervised release term had
expired, and because the government’s deadline to collect the payment had
elapsed. However, Traslavina’s criminal judgment shows that the fine was
imposed as an independent sanction rather than a condition of supervision.
Additionally, the government’s collection efforts were authorized under the
extended deadline provided by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, see 18
U.S.C. § 3613(b), which is applicable to judgments, like Traslavina’s, that were
entered before the statute’s enactment. See United States v. Blackwell, 852 F.3d
1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 2017). Traslavina’s contrary arguments are unpersuasive.
Traslavina’s challenges to the district court’s order denying reconsideration
are also unavailing. The court did not abuse its discretion by denying
reconsideration because Traslavina simply repeated his arguments for termination
of the fine and added an unrelated claim requesting the return of property seized
over 30 years ago. See Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH &
Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating standard of review and explaining
that a reconsideration motion may not be used to raise new arguments).
We do not consider Traslavina’s remaining arguments because they were not
distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d
983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --