United States of America v. Angel Alejandro Carmona, a.k.a. Lil Criminal

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANGEL ALEJANDRO CARMONA, a.k.a.
Lil Criminal,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50210
D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00401-ODW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Angel Alejandro Carmona appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 125-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28
* 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
MAY 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-50210
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Carmona contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors and explain its reasons for the sentence. We
review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The district court considered
and discussed the advisory Guidelines range and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, and explained at length the reasons for the sentence. See Rita v.
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (“The sentencing judge should set forth
enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments
and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.”).
The court also considered Carmona’s mitigating arguments.
Carmona also argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because
the district court sentenced him to 125 months, despite recommendations of 120
months from probation, the government, and the defense. The district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing Carmona’s within-Guidelines sentence. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable
in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --