United States of America v. ELENO COLIN FELICIANO, AKA Eleno Colin, AKA Dustin Colin AKA Victor Colin

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELENO COLIN FELICIANO, AKA Eleno
Colin, AKA Dustin Colin AKA Victor
Colin,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50025
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00655-AHM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Eleno Colin Feliciano appeals from the 64-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AH/Research 09-50025
and ammunition in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Feliciano contends that his mid-range Guidelines sentence is substantively
unreasonable because: (1) the district court overstated the seriousness of the
offense, (2) the district court ignored mitigating personal information and focused
on recidivism, and (3) the 64-month sentence is greater than necessary to comply
with the sentencing purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C § 3553.
The record reflects that the district court properly weighed and considered
the section 3553 factors. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc). Under the circumstances of this case, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in imposing a mid-range Guidelines sentence, and the
sentence is not substantively unreasonable. Id. at 993-94; United States v.
Ringgold, 571 F.3d 948, 953 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding the district court’s
sentence and determination that appellant’s prior imprisonment “has not made a
significant impact upon him”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --