USA V. JOHN REYNOLDS, No. 15-50048 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-50048 D.C. No. 8:11-cr-00008-CJC v. MEMORANDUM* JOHN CARL REYNOLDS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. John Carl Reynolds appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2(a) and 1341. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. * 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). Reynolds contends that the district court erred by applying a sentencing enhancement for his abuse of a position of trust under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. The government contends that this claim is barred by a valid appeal waiver. Reviewing de novo, we conclude that the provision of the appeal waiver stating that Reynolds waives the right to appeal “the procedures and calculations used to determine . . . the sentence” unambiguously encompasses this claim. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2011). Reynolds next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Reynolds’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The high-end sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense and Reynolds’s history of fraudulent behavior. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part. 2 15-50048

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.