USA V. CARLOS MIRANDA-GODOY, No. 14-10288 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 30 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-10288 D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00661-CRB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* CARLOS MIRANDA-GODOY, AKA Andres Sarceno, AKA Shorty, Defendant - Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-10291 D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01112-CRB-1 v. CARLOS MIRANDA-GODOY, AKA Carlos Miranda, AKA Andres Ricardo Sarceno, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, Senior District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Submitted September 15, 2015** San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER, BERZON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Carlos Miranda-Godoy appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He also appeals the district court’s imposition of a 120-month sentence for the conviction and a oneyear consecutive sentence for violating the conditions of supervised release from a prior case. Sufficient evidence supports the § 922(g) conviction. “[A]fter viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). The district court did not commit procedural error when it sentenced Miranda-Godoy to 120 months of imprisonment for the § 922(g) violation. The district court did not clearly err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that Miranda-Godoy committed attempted murder. U.S.S.G. §§ 2A2.1(a), 2K2.1(c); see also United States v. Armstead, 552 F.3d 769, 776 (9th Cir. 2008). ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The district court did not err when it sentenced Miranda-Godoy to 12 months of imprisonment for violating the terms of his supervised release. Courts “may not impose a revocation sentence solely, or even primarily, based on the severity of the new criminal offense underlying the revocation.” United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court did not sentence Miranda-Godoy for the supervised release violation “solely, or even primarily, based on” the felon in possession conviction. It considered Miranda-Godoy’s criminal history and the likelihood that he would resume gang activity in the future, which are permissible sentencing considerations. AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
