N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N
UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e ,

v. ANTONIO AVINA, AKA Gue ro M onike r, AKA Antonio Avina , AKA Hue ro M onike r, AKA Antonio Avina Jr., AKA Antonio Avina -La

rgosa , De fe nda n t - Appe lla

nt. No. 23-728

D.C . No. 2:22-c r-00385-SVW -1

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ste phe n V. W ilson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding
Subm itte d June 3, 2024 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED

JUN 17 2024

M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr iate for public a tion a nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * T h e p an el u n an i m ously c onc l ud es t h i s cas e i s s ui tab l e f o r d eci s i o n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : M

. SM ITH a nd B ADE, C irc uit J udge s, a nd FITZW ATER , *** Distric t Judge

. Antonio Avina , J r., a

ppe a ls the 84-m onth se n te n c e im pose d by the distric t c ourt

a fte r he ple a de d guilty to be ing a fe lon in posse ssion of a fire a rm a nd a m m unition, in
viola tion of 18 U.S.C

. § 922(g)(1). Avina ch a lle n ge s b oth the proc e dura l a n d
substa ntive re a sona

ble n e ss of his se nte nc e

. W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C

. § 1 291 a nd, s u b

j e c t to a lim i te d re m a nd to e n a b le t he distric t c ourt t o c o nform the
writte n judgm e nt to the ora l ly

pronounc e d se nte nc e , we AFFIR M

. 1. W e re vie w se nte nc ing de c isions for a b use of disc re tio n

. U

n ite d State

s v

. C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba n c ). W he n a de fe nda

nt doe s not obje c t

to proc e dura l issue s a t t

he tim e o f se nte nc ing, we re vie w for pla in e rror. Unite d State s

v. D o e , 7 0 5 F.3d 1134, 1153 (9th C ir. 2013). Our re vie w of a se nte nc e is bipa rtite :

“ we first c onside r whe the r t he distric t c ourt c om

m i tte d s i gnific a nt proc e dura l e rror,
the n we c onside r the substa ntive re a sona

ble n e ss o f the se nte nc e .” C arty , 520 F.3d a t
993. A distric t c o u rt c om m its proc e dura l e rror whe n it “ fa il[s] to c o nside r the [18
U.S.C .] § 3553(a ) fa c tors; . . . c hoose [s] a se n te nc e ba se d on c le a rly e rrone ous fa c ts;

or

. . . fa i l[s] a de qua te ly to e xpla in the se nte nc e se le c te d , inc luding a ny de via tion from
the Guide lines ra n ge .” Id. “ In de t e rm ining substa ntive re a sona

ble ne ss, we a re to

* ** The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz wa te r, U nite d Sta t e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.
2c onside r the tota lity of t he c irc um sta

nc e s, i nc luding t

he de gre e of va

rian ce f o r a

se nte nc e i m

pose d outside the Guide line s ra nge .” Id. “ For a non-Guide line s se nte nc e ,

we a re to ‘ give due de fe re nc e t o the distric t c o u rt’ s de c ision tha t t he § 3553(a ) fa c tors,

on a whole , justify the e xte nt of the va ria nc e .’ ” Id. (quoting Gall v

. Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)).

2. Avina ’ s se nte nc e wa s not proc e dura lly u n r eas o nable

. The distric t c ourt

c orre c tly a p plie d the pre p o nde ra

nc e of t he e vide nc e sta

n d a rd in de te rm ining tha t the

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B ) e nha nc e m e nt a

pplie d. Se e ge ne rally Unite d State s v

. Luc as , 1 01 F.4th 1158 (9th C ir. 2024) (e n ba n c ). And the distric t c ourt did not a buse
its disc re tion in a

pply ing the e nha

nc e m e n t be c a

use the re c ord supports the infe re nc e
tha t Avina use d or posse sse d a weap o n in c onne c tion with a nothe r fe lony offe nse :

a tte m pte d se c ond de gre e robbe ry

. The p re s en te nc e re p ort, the polic e re port of the
inc i de nt, a nd the tra n sc ript of vic tim F.G.’ s polic e inte rvie w e a c h support tha t Avina
de m a nde d m one y from F.G. a nd ve rba lly

a nd phy sic a lly

a tta c k e d he r while c a rry ing

a loa de d gun.

We re v ie w the re m a ining proc e dura l i ssue s for pla in e rror be c a use Avina d i d

not obje c t a t the t im e of se n te nc ing. Se e Doe , 705 F.3d a t 1153. T he distric t c ourt did

not pla inly e rr in se nte nc ing Avina ba se d on findings tha t t he “ c rim e s he ha s

c om m itte d involve viole n c e ,” tha t he c om m i tte d “ ga

n g re la t e d cr i m es,” a

nd tha t he

3showe d a “ l ike lihood of c ontinuing to c om m it c rim e s.” Avina wa s pre viously

co n vi ct ed o f the viole nt fe lony offe nse of se c ond de gre e robbe ry , a nd the c ourt had
disc re tion to c onc lude tha t he co m m i t t ed the insta nt o ffe nse in c onne c tion with

a tte m pte d s e c ond de gre e robbe ry

. Avina ’ s 2011 c onvic t ion wa s undispute dly gangre la te d, a nd the distric t c ourt wa s within i ts disc re tion to c onc lude tha t the insta nt
offe nse wa s a lso ga

n g-re la te d be c a

use Avina de m a nde d “ re nt” from

a loc a l busine ss

a nd the re c om

m e nde d supe rvise d re le a se c onditions inc lude d g an g co n d itions. The
distric t c ourt wa s w i thin its d i sc re tion to find, b a se d o n Avina ’ s c rim ina l history , tha t
he is like ly t o c ontinue c om m itting c rim e s. Th e p r es ente nc e re port re fle c ts his

num e rous prior c onvic t ions a nd e ve n m ore num e rous pa role re voc a tions, a nd he wa s
found guilty of prison disc iplinar y v i o l at i ons during e a c h of his prior te rm s of
im prisonm e nt for fe lony

c onvic tions.
The distric t c ourt a lso a d e qua te ly e xpla ine d both its c hose n se nte nc e a nd its

re je c tion of spe c ific , nonfrivolous de fe nse a rgum e nts. It e xpre s sly note d its re lia

nc e

on the Guide line s a nd t

he § 3 553(a ) fa c tors a nd e xplic itly a dd r es s ed the m itiga ting
fa c t or o f Avina ’ s diffic ult c h i ldhood. The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr be c a use i t

wa s not obliga

te d t o disc uss the pa

rtie s’ e vide nc e or a rgum e nts in gre a te r de ta il. Se e ,

e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Musa , 220 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th C ir. 2000).

43. Avina ha s not de m onstra te d tha t his se nte nc e is s ubsta ntive ly unre a sona

ble

. He ha s n ot pointe d t o e v ide n c e tha t his se nte nc e is out of ste p with those of sim ila rly
situa te d de fe nda

nts. Se e 18 U.S.C

. § 3553(a )(6). A nd a l though the se nte nc e is a bove
the a dvisory G uide line s ra nge , “ the re c ord a s a whole re fle c ts [the distric t c ourt ’ s]

ra tiona l a nd m e a ningful c o nside ra tion o f the fa c tors e num e ra te d in 18 U.S.C

. § 3553(a ).” U

nite d State

s v . Re ssam , 679 F.3d 1069, 1089 (9th C ir. 2012) (e n ba nc ) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d ). The distric t c o urt, af t er c onside ring

a ll of t he e vide nc e offe re d in m itiga tion, prope rly re lie d on Avina ’ s long c rim ina l history , inc luding viole nt a nd ga ng-re la te d c rim e s , to c o nc lude tha t the se n te nc e wa s justifie d ba se d on the s e riousne ss of those offe nse s a nd the n e ed to p rom ote re spe c t
for t he l a w, de te r A vina from furthe r c rim ina l c o n d u ct , a nd prote c t the public from
Avina

. 4. The p a rtie s a g r ee t h a t the w ritte n j udgm e nt c onta i ns a dditiona l re stric tions
tha t we re not inc lude d in the ora lly pronounc e d se nte n c e a nd tha t a lim ite d re m a nd is

ne c e ssa ry

. W e the re fore re m a nd for the distric t c ourt to c onform the w ritte n judgm e nt
to the e xa c t te rm s of the ora l ly pronounc e d s e nte nc e

. Se e Unite d State s v . Goddard

, 537 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th C ir. 2008).

AFFIRM E D. L im ite d RE M AND.

5