USA V. JOSHUA FINK, No. 16-50412 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-50412 D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00168-SJO v. MEMORANDUM* JOSHUA DAVID FINK, a.k.a. David Joshua Fink, a.k.a. Wolverine, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Joshua David Fink appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the concurrent 63-month sentences imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 * 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). U.S.C. § 5861(d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Fink contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide an adequate explanation for its rejection of Fink’s argument that his criminal history category overrepresented the seriousness of his criminal history. Because Fink raises this contention for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court expressly discussed Fink’s argument regarding his criminal history category and ultimately determined that a downward variance was not warranted because the circumstances of Fink’s crimes of conviction demonstrated that he posed a danger to the public. The record as a whole reflects the basis for the district court’s determination, and the district court did not plainly err in its explanation. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[A]dequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole.”). AFFIRMED. 2 16-50412
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.
