This disposit ion is not appropriate f or publication and is not pre cedent except as * provided by

9th Cir. R. 36-3. The pa nel unanimously

conclude s this case is suitable for decision without oral ** argument. SeeFe d. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)
.

The Honorable Gordon J . Quist, Senior District Judg e for the U.S. District Court *** for Western Mic higa

n, Gra nd Rapids, sitt ing by

designation. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T
UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

-A pp el l ee , v. VI NC E NT E DWAR D C AN T U, D e f

e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50597 D
. C
. N o. 8: 08 -c r- 00 23 6-C JC -1
ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C or m a c J
. C a rne y , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 15, 2011 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: R Y M E R and B Y B E E , C i rc ui tJudg es , and Q U IS T , S eni or D i stri ct Judg e. ***

D ef endant , V i ncentE dw ar d C antu, appeal s the 16 2-m on th se nt ence he re ce i ved 

# FI LED APR15 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

a f t e rp l e a d i n g g u i l ty t o tw o c o u n t s o f a r me d r o b b e ry , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U
. S. C. § 2 1 1 3 ( a ) a n d ( d ) , a n d o n e c o u n to f b r a n d i s h i n g a f

i r e a r m, i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U
. S. C. § 9 24 (c )( 1)(A ). F i rs t , D ef

ense co u n se l ’ s vague obj ec t i on thatthe prosecut or’ s r ef er ence at
se nt enci ng t o D ef

endant ’ s hav in g rob bed o ther banks as no t“ approp ri at e” w as i n su ffi ci en t t o p reserv e th e i ssu e f o r a p p e a l. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. C an nel , 517 F
. 3d 1172, 1176 ( 9th C i r . 2008)
. I n a ddi t i on, unde rthe pr of f e ra gr e e m e n t , the G o v er n m en t w as fr ee to u se D ef en d an t’ s p ro ff

erstatem en ts to re fu te h is law y er ’s
se nt enci ng bri ef

thatD ef

endant“ had n o p ri or hi st ory of r ob beri es o r gun -r el at ed
c r im e s .” F u r th e r m o r e , C a n tu c a n n o t e s tab lis h p r e ju d ic e . U

ni t e d Stat e s v . M

ar c us , 130 S
. C t . 21 59 , 21 64 (201 0). T here i s no i nd i ca t i on that the di stri ct court even consi dere d the ot her r ob beri es i n d et erm i ni ng the se nt ence . S e c o n d , D e f

e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e w a s r e a s o n ab le . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly
c ons i de r e d the D e f

e nda nt ’ s f

or m e roc c upa t i on a s a pol i c e of f i c e r both a s a m i t i ga t i ng
a n d a s a n a g g r a v a tin g f

a c to r . See U

n i t ed S ta t es v. A u t ery , 55 5 F
. 3d 86 4, 87 4 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). T he di stri ctcourt al so prop er l y e xp l ai ned i t s r ea sons for i m po si ng the se nt ence i t di d a nd a r t i c ul a t e d tha t r e a s oni ng t o a s uf f i c i e nt de gr e e t o a l l ow f o r m ean i n gf

ul
ap p e lla te r e v ie w . U

ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez -P erez , 51 2 F
. 3d 51 4, 51 6-51 7 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 8 )
. T h i rd , D efen d an t w as p u n i sh ed o n l y on ce for brandi shi ng a fi re arm w i th res pect to e a c h r o b b e ry – v ia a s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n t a s to th e f ir s t a n d v ia § 9 2 4 ( c ) a s to3

th e s e c o n d
. F i n al l y , D e f

e nda ntm a ke s no a f

f i r m a t i ve a l l e ga t i on tha the di d notr e a d the P S R ; th erefo re h e can n o t sh o w p rej u d i ce an d an y R u l e 3 2 (i )(1 )(A ) erro r i s h arm l ess. See e. g . , U

n i t ed S ta t es v. So l t ero , 51 0 F
. 3d 85 8, 86 3-64 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( per c uri am ); U ni t e d Stat e s v . D av i la- Es c ov e do , 3 6 F .3 d 8 4 0 , 8 4 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 )
. A cco rd i n g l y, D efen d an t ’ s sen t en ce i s AF F I RME D.