United States v. Kelaukila Estabilio

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10238
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:20-cr-00010-JMS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KELAUKILA ESTABILIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges
Kelaukila Estabilio appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 54-month sentence imposed on remand following her guilty-plea conviction for
wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
*
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).
Estabilio contends that the district court failed to explain why it rejected her
argument that an above-Guidelines sentence would create an unwarranted
sentencing disparity with other similarly situated defendants. This argument is not
supported by the record, which shows that the court explicitly addressed why the
facts of this case are unique and explained at length why an upward variance was
justified. The court was not required to say more. See United States v. Carty, 520
F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Estabilio also argues that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. Under
the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). Contrary to Estabilio’s arguments, the court was not required to accord
more weight to her post-sentencing rehabilitation, or less weight to the fact that the
true victims of Estabilio’s fraud were the at-risk children served by her employer.
See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The
weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the
district court.”). Moreover, the court’s remarks at sentencing do not at all resemble
the kind of “undisciplined and unjudicial surrender to hot blood” that has
previously justified a vacatur and remand by this court. United States v. Duhart,
496 F.2d 941, 946 (9th Cir. 1974).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-10238