United States of America v. Angel Sandoval Mondragon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANGEL SANDOVAL MONDRAGON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-30038
D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00386-JLR-1
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARBELLA SANDOVAL
MONDRAGON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-30039
D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00386-JLR-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 17-30047
D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00386-JLR-3
FILED
MAR 23 2018
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.
1

-- 1 of 3 --

v.
MIGUEL ARCEF-FLORES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 9, 2018
Seattle, Washington
Before: RAWLINSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,**
Chief District Judge.
Defendants-Appellants Angel Mondragon, Marbella Mondragon, and
Miguel Arcef-Flores appeal the sentences imposed on them by the district court.
Sentencing decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). In conducting this
review, we consider both procedural error and substantive reasonableness. United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008).
The court below did not procedurally err. It considered Defendants’
arguments for downward variances and the relevant evidence. Defendants argue
that the district court failed to consider relevant factors, such as a defendant’s
** The Honorable Nancy Freudenthal, Chief United States District Judge
for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

“abusive and impoverished” childhood, but the district court made explicit
reference to those claims. Defendants may disagree with the district court’s
conclusions, but that is a substantive objection, not a procedural error.
In reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, our review is
highly deferential, and “relief is appropriate only in rare cases when the appellate
court possesses ‘a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a
clear error of judgment.’” United States v. Doe, 842 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir.
2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 1597 (2017) (internal citations omitted). Defendants
failed to demonstrate that their sentences are not substantively reasonable. The
district court reasonably weighed MCR’s testimony and the other evidence before
it. The upward variances in Defendants’ sentences were based on the district
court’s conclusion that Defendants’ activities were “outside the heartland” of the
crime for which they pled guilty. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
reaching that conclusion and in sentencing Defendants.1
AFFIRMED.
1We do not find a need to strike portions of the Reply Brief at this stage in
the proceedings. The Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant-Appellant Marbella
Mondragon’s Reply Brief is DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --