The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-50478•United States of America v. Lorenzo Gonzalez, a.k.a. Grumpy
15-50478Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 24, 2017
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LORENZO GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Grumpy,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50478
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00050-SVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Lorenzo Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 262-month sentence imposed upon resentencing after remand following his
jury-trial conviction for one count of racketeering influenced and corrupt
organizations conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and two counts of
FILED
JAN 24 2017
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).
-- 1 of 2 --
violent crime in aid of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(2). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gonzalez contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district
court declined to impose the below-guidelines sentence recommended by the
probation officer. The record reflects that the district court adequately explained
its reasons for not accepting the probation officer’s recommendation. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court did
not abuse its discretion in imposing Gonzalez’s sentence. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances, including the seriousness of Gonzalez’s offenses and the need
for deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
15-50478 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.