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. DOM INIC K JEFFREY AR AGON, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 21-30021

D.C . No. 1:20-c r-00267-M C -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l J. M c Shane , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 7, 2021 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N, C H R ISTEN, a

nd B ADE, C irc uit Judge s. While se rving two undischa rge d sta te se nte nc e s
— one for a

re voc at ion of probat ion, a

nd the othe r for driving under the influe nc e of intoxic ants— Dom inic k Ara gon ple a de d

guilty to a

fe de ra l c ha

rge for distribution of c oc a ine , in viola tion 

# FIL ED DEC 20 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a )(1), (b)(1)(C ). Ara gon wa s se nte nc e d to 30 m onths’

im prisonm e nt, with 15 months to run c o nc urre ntly with his undisc

ha rge d sta te
se nte nc e s, a

nd 15 m onths to run c onse c utive ly . Ara gon a ppe a l s his se nte nc e . W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . B e c a

u se the pa rtie s are fam ilia

r with the fa c ts, we do not re c ite the m he re . 1. The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr by im p osing a pa rtia lly c onc urre nt
and pa rtia lly c onse c utive se nte nc e . Whe re , a s he re , a de fe nda nt did not obje c t to
an a l le g e d se nte nc ing e rror be fore the distric t c ourt, this c ourt re vie ws his c la im s for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . Hammons , 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th C ir. 2009). Pla i n e rror is “ (1) e rror, (2) tha t is pla in, (3) tha

t a ffe c te d substa

ntia l rights, a

nd (4) that se riously

a ffe c t e d the fa irne ss, inte grity or public re puta

t ion of thejudic ia l proc e e dings.” Unite d State s v . Fe rguson , 8 F.4th 1143, 1145–46 (9th C ir. 2021) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). Unite d State s Se nte nc i ng Guide line (U.S.S.G.) § 5G1.3 a pplie s to de fe nda nts likeAra gon who a

re se rving a

n undisc ha

rge d te rm of im prisonm e nt a

t the t im e of se nte nc ing. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b) dire c ts c o urts to im pose a c o nc urre nt
se nte nc e whe n the offe nse unde rly ing theundisc ha rge d te rm is “ re le va

nt c onduc t” to the insta

nt offe nse . Howe ve r, Ara gon c onc e de s his DUI c onvic tion is unre late d

2to the insta

nt offe nse . 1 C onse que ntly , § 5G1.3(b) a nd its dire c tive do not a

pply to Ara gon’ s se nte nc e . Se eUnite d State s v . K imble , 107 F.3d 712, 713, 715 (9th C i r. 1997) (holding tha

t § 5G1.3(b) doe s not a

pply “ whe re at

le a st one of a

de fe nda nt’ s undisc ha rge d prison te rm s is not re late d to theinsta nt offe nse ” ); se ealso U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 c m

t. n.4(D). Thedistric t c ourt the re fore a ppropria te ly e xe rc ise d its disc re tion in sente nc ing Ara gon to a te rm of im

prisonm e nt tha

t wa s pa rtia lly
c onc urre nt a

nd pa rtia l l y c o nse c utive to his undischa rge d te rm of im prisonm e nt. 2. The distric t c ourt a de q

uate ly e xpla ine d its ra

tiona le for im

p osing a pa rtia l ly c onc urre nt a

nd pa rtia lly c onse c utive se nte nc e . In se nte nc ing a de fe nda nt,
a distric t c ourt m

ust c onside r the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) se nte nc ing c onside rations
and e xpla in its re a soning in deta il suffic ie nt to pe rm it m e a n ingful a ppe lla te re vie w. Se eUnite d State

s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 991–92 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ). An
e xpla nation is suffic ie nt if it “ c om m unic ate s tha

t the pa rtie s’ argum e nts ha

ve be e n he ard, a n d tha t a re a sone d de c ision ha s be e n m a de .” Id. at 992. The c ourt inform e d the pa rtie s tha t it re vie we d the Pre s e nte nc e Inve stiga tion R e port (PSR) and se nte nc ing brie fs; he ard ora l a rgum e nt from

the pa rtie s; c onside re d Ara gon’ s c rim i na l history and history

of drug a nd a lc ohol a

buse ; a nd

1 W e e xpre ss no vie won whe the r Ara gon’ s c oc a ine de live ry offe nse unde rly ing his re voc ation of proba tion , w a s re le va

nt c onduc t to the insta

nt offe nse . 3e xpre s se d c onc e rn a bout re le a s ing Ara gon into the c om m unity in light of the

high risk shown by

his re c idivism

and im pulsive ne ss a

round a lc ohol. Thedistric t
c ourt’ s e xpla

nation of its sente n c ing de c ision wa s the re fore suffic i e nt. Se eid. 3. Ne xt, the distric t c ourt’ s se nte n c e wa s not substa ntive ly unre a sona

ble
.

“ W e c onduc t a

two-step a

na ly sis whe n re vie wing there a sona ble n e ss of a

se nte nc e :

‘ w e first c onside r whe t

he r the distric t c ourt c om

m itte d signific ant proc e dura l e rror, the n we c onside r the substa

ntive re a sona

ble ne ss of the se nte nc e .’ ” Unite d State s v . Apodac a , 641 F.3d 1077, 1080–81 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting C arty , 520 F.3d a

t 993). A se nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona ble if, unde r the tota lity

of the
c irc um s ta nc e s , it is “ suffic ie nt, but not gre ate r tha n ne c e ssa ry ” to a c hie ve the sta tutory goa ls of se nte nc ing. C

arty , 520 F.3d a

t 993–94. Ara gon a ppe ars to sugge st tha

t his prose c ution a

nd se nte nc e we re unfa ir a nd
unre a s ona

ble . Ara gon posits tha

t, if he we re prose c ute d in fe de ra l c ourt for both the April 2018 c oc a ine sa l e and June 2018 c oc a ine c ha rge , his total offe nse le ve l would not ha

ve c ha n ge d. He a lso a

rgue s tha t, if thegove rnm e nt would ha ve prose c ute d him

for the April 2018 c oc a ine sa le e arlie r, his other offe nse s would not have c o unte d a ga i nst him , and tha t the distric t

c o urt should ha

ve “ im pose [d] a se nte nc e a s if the two c a s e s we re se nte nc e d a s one ” (i.e ., a be low-Guide l ine s, fully
c onc urre nt se nte nc e ).
4The se argum e nts a re pre m ise d on Ara gon’ s inc orre c t a ssum ption tha t § 5G1.3(b) a

p plie d to his sente nc e . Ara gon provide s no support for his im plie d
c onte ntion tha

t the prose c ution of thefe de ra l offe nse wa s som e how unfa irly de la y e d. In any

e ve nt, the distric t c ourt a de quate ly c onside re d the § 3553(a) fa c t ors a n d im pose d a se nte nc e at the bottom

of the Guide line s range . 2 The distric t
c ourt’ s se nte nc e wa s re a s ona ble
. Se eid. at 988 (“ [A] c orre c tly c a lc ulate d Guide line s se nte nc e will norm a lly not be found unre a sona

ble on a ppe a l .” ). 4. Ara gon c onte nds tha

t it wa s e rror for the distric t c ourt not to notify the pa rtie s tha t Ara gon’ s se nte nc e would inc lude a c onse c utive c o m

pone nt. This
argum e nt is ba se d on thefa ulty pre m ise tha

t § 5G1.3(b) re quire d a c onc urre nt
se nte nc e in Ara gon’ s c a s e . As e xpla ine d a bove , § 5G1.3(b) is ina

pplic a ble to Ara gon’ s se nte nc e , so thedistric t c o urt did not de pa rt from the Se nte nc ing Guide line s in im

posing a pa rtia lly c onse c utive se nte nc e . Ac c ordingly , no suc h notic e wa s re quire d he re . Se e Fe d. R . C rim . P. 32(h); Unite d State s v . Fifie ld, 432 F.3d 1056, 1063 (9th C ir. 2005).

2 C ontra ry to Ara gon’ s sugge stion, thedistric t c ourt did not err sim ply be c a use it did not adopt thepa rtie s’ and the PSR ’ s se nte nc ing re c om m e ndations. Inde e d , the PSR

a dvise d the distric t c ourt tha t, in se nte nc ing Ara gon for the April 2018 c oc a ine sa le , it wa s pe rm itte d to im pose a se nte nc e to run c onc urre ntly , pa rtia l ly c onc urre ntly , or c onse c utive ly to Ara gon’ s prior undisc ha rge d te rm of im prisonm e nt. 5AFFIRM E D.

6