United States of America v. Vaikalafi Lutui

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VAIKALAFI LUTUI,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50542
D.C. No. 5:10-cr-00075-VAP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Vaikalafi Lutui appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of probation. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 24 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-50542 2
Lutui contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain
adequately why it imposed a sentence within the Guidelines range applicable to his
underlying offense instead of the Chapter 7 Guidelines range. He further argues
that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, including his rehabilitation. We review for plain
error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and find none. When sentencing a probation violator, the district court may
rely either on the Guidelines range governing the original offense or on the
Guidelines policy statements governing probation violations. See United States v.
Plunkett, 94 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1996). The record indicates the district court
considered both sentencing ranges and the section 3553(a) factors, and adequately
explained the sentence.
Lutui also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
of his demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation. The district court did not abuse
its discretion in imposing Lutui’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a)
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --