United States of America v. Paul Ricky Mata

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PAUL RICKY MATA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-50301
D.C. No. 5:19-cr-00214-RGK-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Paul Ricky Mata appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 168-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for mail
fraud, wire fraud, making false statements in bankruptcy, concealing assets in
bankruptcy, and making false oath and accounts in bankruptcy, in violation of 18
* 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).
FILED
JUL 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-50301
U.S.C. §§ 2(b), 1341, 1343, and 152(1)-(3). We vacate Mata’s sentence and
remand for resentencing.
Mata contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain
the sentence adequately, including what standard of proof it applied to the amount
of loss determination under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1), what evidence it relied on to
make that determination, and why it selected the 168-month sentence. The
government agrees that “the district court’s brief explanation for its sentencing
decision may not fully have met the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) or Fed.
R. Crim. P. 32(i).” Nevertheless, it argues that remand is not required because
Mata cannot show that the error affected his substantial rights. We disagree. The
record—which does not reflect the district court’s rationale for accepting the
presentence report’s loss calculation over Mata’s much lower calculation, or for
concluding that 168 months was “the appropriate sentence”—is not adequate to
permit meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992
(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Without an adequate sentencing explanation, we cannot
determine whether the district court correctly calculated the amount of loss or
adequately considered the parties’ arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors in selecting the sentence. Thus, resentencing is required. See
United States v. Doe, 705 F.3d 1134, 1154-56 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that the
district court’s procedural violations, including its failure to expressly rule on the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-50301
defendant’s objections to the Guidelines calculation, amounted to plain error).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Mata’s arguments that the loss
calculation and resulting Guidelines range were incorrectly determined, or that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable. We also do not reach Mata’s challenges,
made for the first time on appeal, to supervised release conditions 4 and 5. He is
free to raise those arguments upon resentencing if the district court elects to
reimpose those conditions.
VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing.

-- 3 of 3 --