United States of America v. Vincent Charles Fasone

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VINCENT CHARLES FASONE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10278
D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00091-HDM-
VPC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and HUCK, Senior District
Judge.***
FILED
MAR 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 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).
*** The Honorable Paul C. Huck, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for Southern Florida, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Vincent Fasone appeals his 150-month sentence for one count of attempted
coercion and enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Fasone’s
sentence included a two-level enhancement for an offense involving the use of a
computer and an eight-level enhancement for an offense involving a minor under
the age of twelve. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Fasone contends that the district court did not adequately consider Fasone’s
untreated post-traumatic stress disorder related to his military service. But the
district court did consider Fasone’s military service and the potential impact it had
on Fasone’s mental health, along with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, especially
protection of the public. In giving Fasone a mid-Guidelines sentence of 150
months, the district court sufficiently explained that it would have given a sentence
at the high end of the Guidelines range but for Fasone’s military service and a
mental health condition that was either created by, or exacerbated by, his military
service. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc).
1 The district court also imposed a consecutive ten-year sentence for one
count of commission of a felony sex offense by an individual required to register
as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2260A. Fasone does not object to this
part of his sentence, but argues that the resulting 270-month total sentence is
substantively unreasonable.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

Fasone also contends that the district court did not adequately explain its
reasons for rejecting Fasone’s non-frivolous arguments that his sentencing
enhancements lacked empirical foundation. The record reflects otherwise. The
district court explained its rejection of Fasone’s argument against the two-level
enhancement for use of a computer, noting that Fasone used a computer as a
substantial instrument to advance his offense. The district court rejected Fasone’s
argument against the eight-level enhancement for an offense involving a minor
under the age of twelve, stressing its legitimate penological purpose. Fasone
challenges the depth and specificity of the district court’s explanations, but the
district court was not required to provide a more detailed explanation. See United
States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 920 (9th Cir. 2011); Carty, 520 F.3d at 992-
93. We hold that the district court gave sufficient reasoning to permit appellate
review of the mid-range sentence it imposed and its reasons for rejecting Fasone’s
arguments for a minimum mandatory sentence of ten years. See United States v.
Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1010 (9th Cir. 2013).
Also, considering the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, Fasone’s 270-month sentence is substantively reasonable. See
Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --