United States of America v. FERDINAND ONIA MATI, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FERDINAND ONIA MATI, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-50093
D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00410-JLS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Ferdinand Onia Mati, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 13-month sentence and several conditions of supervised release
imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm, in
* 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).
FILED
FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-50093
part, and remand with instructions.
Mati first contends that the district court failed to consider his mitigating
arguments. We review this procedural argument for plain error, see United States
v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that
there is none. It is clear from the record that the district court considered Mati’s
written submissions, the arguments he made at the sentencing hearing, and the
facts detailed in the presentence investigation report, but was not persuaded that
they warranted a lower sentence.
Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a
within-Guidelines 13-month sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). Contrary to Mati’s contention that the sentence does not reflect adequately
his mitigating arguments or the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities,
the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Finally, Mati challenges the standard supervised release conditions 5, 6, and
14. As the government concedes, those standard supervised release conditions are
unconstitutionally vague. See United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154, 1162-64 (9th
Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 133 (2018). We remand for the district court to
modify the conditions consistent with our opinion in Evans.
AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED with instructions.

-- 2 of 2 --