United States of America v. Mario Demarlo Alston

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARIO DEMARLO ALSTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-10289
D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00113-CDS-EJY-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Cristina D. Silva, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Mario Demarlo Alston appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
coercion and enticement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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
SEP 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-10289
Alston contends that his stipulated sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the parties anticipated a lower Guidelines range and because the court
gave undue weight to his criminal history and marijuana use. We are unpersuaded
by the government’s argument that Alston waived this claim, but we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Alston’s sentence. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines, 87-month
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature of the offense and Alston’s
criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-
Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various
factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).
We decline to consider Alston’s challenge to the computer use enhancement
because it is unsupported by any argument. See United States v. Williamson, 439
F.3d 1125, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2006) (issues raised in brief but not supported by
argument are abandoned).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --