USA V. MICHAEL CARONA, No. 13-55597 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED DEC 03 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-55597 D.C. Nos. 8:12-cv-01931-AG 8:06-cr-00224-AG-2 v. MICHAEL S. CARONA, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 6, 2013 Pasadena, California Before: FISHER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON, Senior District Judge.** Defendant Michael Carona appeals the district court s denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge for the District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Carona obstructed a criminal investigation into a form of honest services fraud that survived Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010). The investigation was looking into possible bribery. Whether Carona actually committed or was convicted of bribery is immaterial. Under United States v. Arias, 253 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2009), the crossreference to U.S.S.G. § 2X3.1 applies without regard to whether the underlying offense is provable. 253 F.3d at 455. As we explained in that decision, proof of the underlying offense is not material, because the point of the cross reference is to punish more severely (and to provide a greater disincentive for) . . . obstruction of prosecutions with respect to more serious crimes. Id. at 459. Because the district court did not clearly err in finding that bribery was one of the crimes being investigated, it was appropriate to sentence Carona accordingly. Carona s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence is based on the premise that the guidelines range was not correctly calculated by the district court, but we conclude that the range was not improperly determined. The sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
