United States of America v. Michael S. Carona

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL S. CARONA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-55597
D.C. Nos. 8:12-cv-01931-AG
8:06-cr-00224-AG-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 6, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: FISHER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON, Senior
District Judge. **
Defendant Michael Carona appeals the district court’s denial of his motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.
FILED
DEC 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge for the
District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

The district court did not clearly err in finding that Carona obstructed a
criminal investigation into a form of honest services fraud that survived Skilling v.
United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010). The investigation was looking into possible
bribery. Whether Carona actually committed or was convicted of bribery is
immaterial. Under United States v. Arias, 253 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2009), the cross-
reference to U.S.S.G. § 2X3.1 “applies without regard to whether the underlying
offense is provable.” 253 F.3d at 455. As we explained in that decision, “proof of
the underlying offense is not material, because the point of the cross reference is to
punish more severely (and to provide a greater disincentive for) . . . obstruction
of prosecutions with respect to more serious crimes.” Id. at 459. Because the
district court did not clearly err in finding that bribery was one of the crimes being
investigated, it was appropriate to sentence Carona accordingly.
Carona’s challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence is
based on the premise that the guidelines range was not correctly calculated by the
district court, but we conclude that the range was not improperly determined. The
sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --