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. Mikiloni MOLI, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM *
Mikiloni Moli appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 170-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, and distribution of methamphetamine and cocaine, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Moli contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his non-frivolous arguments for a downward variance. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. Contrary to Moli's contentions, the record demonstrates that the district court considered Moli's post-arrest admissions to law enforcement about distributing additional quantities of methamphetamine as evidence of his cooperation with law enforcement and treated it as a mitigating factor. The record also demonstrates that the court considered Moli's arguments regarding his 2010 assault case and simply was not persuaded by them. Under the circumstances, the district court was not required to do more. See United States v. Sandoval-Orellana, 714 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 2013) (“If the record ‘makes clear that the sentencing judge listened to each argument’ and ‘considered the supporting evidence,’ the district court's statement of reasons for the sentence ․ will be ‘legally sufficient.’ ” (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) ) ).
Moli also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence of 170 months is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the large quantity of drugs Moli distributed, his history of poly-substance abuse, and the need for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
AFFIRMED.
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. 18-10085
Decided: December 21, 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)