Court Opinion

ID: 4656017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-01-29 21:00:42.8501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:28.957207
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 29 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 19-30240

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:18-cr-00175-BLW-2

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
FRANCIS R. CASILDO,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Idaho
                   B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 20, 2021**

Before:      McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Francis R. Casildo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 235-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for possession

with intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to distribute a controlled

substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (C) and 846. We have

      *
             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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Casildo contends that the district court abused its discretion by placing

undue weight on the need for deterrence to the exclusion of the other 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality

of the circumstances, including the need to protect the public and the seriousness

of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also 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,

contrary to Casildo’s contention, the record reflects that the district court

considered all of the § 3553(a) factors and thoroughly explained its decision to

impose the 235-month sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992

(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“The district court need not tick off each of the

§ 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     19-30240