United States v. Gilbert Davila, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 28 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10356
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:18-cr-00062-JCM-NJK-1
v.
GILBERT DAVILA, Jr., MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 16, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and TAGLE,*** District Judge.
Gilbert Davila, Jr. was found guilty of possession of child pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). The district court sentenced Davila to a
*
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).
***
The Honorable Hilda G. Tagle, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
within-guideline sentence of 240 months of imprisonment followed by lifetime
supervised release. Davila appeals his conviction and sentence. We affirm.
1. We review a sufficiency of the evidence claim following a bench trial de
novo. United States v. Jiang, 476 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2007). Sufficient
evidence supports a conviction if, “viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The evidence presented at trial, viewed in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, supports Davila’s conviction. The government
presented sufficient evidence to sustain the district court’s conclusion that Davila
made a voluntary confession to possession of child pornography in an interview
with law enforcement. The district court relied upon the interview recording and
the investigating officer’s testimony that Davila called him and drove to his office,
appeared “relatively calm” and “of sober mind,” and showed “no signs of
impairment” during the interview.
Further, the government presented sufficient evidence to prove the
connection between Davila and the Google account used to upload over 650
images of child pornography. Davila admitted during the interview that the email
address and phone number connected to the Google account belonged to him; that
he viewed child pornography for several years; that he viewed child pornography
2
on his phone, as recently as one week before the interview; and that he mostly
looked at young children. Further, the email address contained Davila’s middle and
last names, and images of Davila and his vehicle were uploaded to the same
Google account. Construing the evidence in the government’s favor, a rational trier
of fact could have concluded that Davila knowingly possessed child pornography,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).
2. The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2009). A sentence
is substantively reasonable “[w]hen a district judge has considered the § 3553(a)
factors and the totality of the circumstances supports the sentence.” United States
v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110, 1116 (9th Cir. 2010). Though we have declined to
adopt the presumption that a sentence within the guideline range is reasonable, we
recognize that such a sentence “will usually be reasonable.” United States v. Carty,
520 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351
(2007)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Davila to 240
months of imprisonment. The district court considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) factors. The district court balanced the mitigating circumstances, including
Davila’s supportive family and friends, his religious commitment, and his work
ethic, against other relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offense and
3
the need for deterrence and just punishment. The 240-month sentence was also
within the guideline range. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a).1
AFFIRMED.
1
Under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a), the statutory maximum becomes the guideline
sentence when it is less than the minimum of the guideline range. Here, the
guideline range was calculated to be 324–405 months of imprisonment, but the
statutory maximum was 240 months.
4