Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel Sandoval MONDRAGON, Defendant-Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marbella Sandoval Mondragon, Defendant-Appellant.
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Arcef-Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Defendants-Appellants Angel Mondragon, Marbella Mondragon, and Miguel Arcef-Flores appeal the sentences imposed on them by the district court. Sentencing decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). In conducting this review, we consider both procedural error and substantive reasonableness. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008).
The court below did not procedurally err. It considered Defendants’ arguments for downward variances and the relevant evidence. Defendants argue that the district court failed to consider relevant factors, such as a defendant’s “abusive and impoverished” childhood, but the district court made explicit reference to those claims. Defendants may disagree with the district court’s conclusions, but that is a substantive objection, not a procedural error.
In reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, our review is highly deferential, and “relief is appropriate only in rare cases when the appellate court possesses ‘a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment.’ ” United States v. Doe, 842 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1597, 197 L.Ed.2d 722 (2017) (internal citations omitted). Defendants failed to demonstrate that their sentences are not substantively reasonable. The district court reasonably weighed MCR’s testimony and the other evidence before it. The upward variances in Defendants’ sentences were based on the district court’s conclusion that Defendants’ activities were “outside the heartland” of the crime for which they pled guilty. The district court did not abuse its discretion in reaching that conclusion and in sentencing Defendants.1
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1. We do not find a need to strike portions of the Reply Brief at this stage in the proceedings. The Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant-Appellant Marbella Mondragon’s Reply Brief is DENIED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-30038, No. 17-30039, No. 17-30047
Decided: March 23, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)