USA V. ANTHONY GONZALES, No. 14-50283 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 10 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-50283 D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03108-H-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ANTHONY MICHAEL GONZALES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2015 ** Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Anthony Michael Gonzales appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for receipt of images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Gonzales asserts that the district court’s sentence of 120 months is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating circumstances, including his youth and lack of criminal history. To determine whether a sentence is substantively unreasonable, we consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We review for abuse of discretion and “will provide relief only in rare cases.” United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Though the Guidelines sentence is harsh, this is not the rare case where relief is appropriate. The district court granted a five-level downward departure based on the mitigating factors argued by Gonzales. The 120-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 14-50283

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.