United States of America v. Wimibaldo Ever Cedeno

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WIMIBALDO EVER CEDENO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-30210
D.C. No. 3:16-cr-05242-RJB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Wimibaldo Ever Cedeno appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 210-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for six counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child under 12, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2241(c) and 2246(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
* 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
OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-30210
we affirm.
Cedeno first argues that the district court erroneously determined that there
was no evidence as to Cedeno’s motive for committing the offenses or as to his
likelihood of reoffending. We review this procedural argument raised for the first
time on appeal for plain error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761
(9th Cir. 2008). The record as a whole reflects that the court read and considered
the psychosexual evaluation that Cedeno submitted, as well his mitigating
arguments, but was persuaded neither that Cedeno’s post-traumatic stress disorder
had caused him to commit the offenses, nor that Cedeno posed a demonstrably low
risk for reoffending. The evidence in the record supports the court’s
determinations, and Cedeno has not demonstrated any procedural error. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Cedeno also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The 210-month, below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable
in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including the seriousness of the offense, the need to provide
adequate deterrence, and the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --