United States v. Faustino Gonzales ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10237
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00248-WBS
v.
FAUSTINO GONZALES, MEMORANDUM*
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 Chavez-
Meza 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