United States of America v. Francisco Medina Casteneda

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANCISCO MEDINA CASTENEDA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10125
D.C. No. 2:03-cr-00549-WBS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2013 **
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Medina Casteneda appeals from the district court’s order denying
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
FEB 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Casteneda’s sentence is within the modified Sentencing Guidelines range.
However, he contends that he argued before the district court that the disparity
between his sentence and the sentences of his co-conspirators warranted a sentence
reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) and that the district court erred by failing
to address that argument. Because Casteneda did not object below, we review for
plain error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008).
Casteneda has not shown plain error affecting his substantial rights. See id.; see
also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93, 995-96 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc). Casteneda’s reliance on United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1008-10
n.5 (9th Cir. 2013), is misplaced because, unlike Casteneda, Trujillo raised
extensive non-frivolous arguments tethered to specific § 3553(a) factors and
received a sentence above the modified Guidelines range. In addition, Casteneda
has not shown a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been different
absent the alleged error. See Dallman, 533 F.3d at 761-62.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --