USA V. FAUSTINO GONZALES, No. 17-10237 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 29 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-10237 D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00248-WBS v. MEMORANDUM* FAUSTINO GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Faustino Gonzales appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court assumed that Gonzales was statutorily eligible for a sentence reduction due to Amendment 782 to the Guidelines, but concluded that a reduction was not warranted under the * 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). circumstances. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review discretionary denials of sentence reduction motions for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Chaney, 581 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm. Gonzales first contends that the court abused its discretion by relying on a 2012-2013 prison disciplinary record to find that he posed a danger to public safety. The district court was permitted to consider such post-sentencing conduct when ruling on Gonzalez’s motion, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B), and Gonzalez has not demonstrated that the district court’s factual findings or inferences drawn from those records were clearly erroneous, see United States v. Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d 942, 953 (9th Cir. 2017). Gonzales also argues that the court failed to (1) consider all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and (2) address explicitly Gonzales’s argument that he did not pose a risk to public safety. It is apparent from the court’s statements and the record as a whole that the court properly considered the section 3553(a) factors, as well as Gonzales’s arguments, in rendering its decision. The court was not required to provide a more detailed explanation of its reasoning. See ChavezMeza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1966 (2018) (“[T]he judge need not provide a lengthy explanation if the context and the record make clear that the judge had a reasoned basis for [its decision]”) (internal quotation marks omitted). AFFIRMED. 2 17-10237

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.