USA V. LORENZO GONZALEZ, No. 15-50478 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 24 2017 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-50478 D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00050-SVW v. MEMORANDUM* LORENZO GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Grumpy, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Lorenzo Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 262-month sentence imposed upon resentencing after remand following his jury-trial conviction for one count of racketeering influenced and corrupt organizations conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and two counts of * 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). violent crime in aid of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Gonzalez contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court declined to impose the below-guidelines sentence recommended by the probation officer. The record reflects that the district court adequately explained its reasons for not accepting the probation officer’s recommendation. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Gonzalez’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-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 Gonzalez’s offenses and the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 15-50478

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.