United States of America v. CARLOS MIRANDA-GODOY, AKA Andres Sarceno, AKA Shorty

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS MIRANDA-GODOY, AKA
Andres Sarceno, AKA Shorty,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10288
D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00661-CRB-1
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS MIRANDA-GODOY, AKA
Carlos Miranda, AKA Andres Ricardo
Sarceno,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10291
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-01112-CRB-1
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, Senior District Judge, Presiding
FILED
SEP 30 2015
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.

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted September 15, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, BERZON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Miranda-Godoy appeals his conviction for being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He also appeals the
district court’s imposition of a 120-month sentence for the conviction and a one-
year consecutive sentence for violating the conditions of supervised release from a
prior case.
Sufficient evidence supports the § 922(g) conviction. “[A]fter viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Jackson
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
The district court did not commit procedural error when it sentenced
Miranda-Godoy to 120 months of imprisonment for the § 922(g) violation. The
district court did not clearly err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that
Miranda-Godoy committed attempted murder. U.S.S.G. §§ 2A2.1(a), 2K2.1(c); see
also United States v. Armstead, 552 F.3d 769, 776 (9th Cir. 2008).
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

The district court did not err when it sentenced Miranda-Godoy to 12
months of imprisonment for violating the terms of his supervised release. Courts
“may not impose a revocation sentence solely, or even primarily, based on the
severity of the new criminal offense underlying the revocation.” United States v.
Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court did not sentence
Miranda-Godoy for the supervised release violation “solely, or even primarily,
based on” the felon in possession conviction. It considered Miranda-Godoy’s
criminal history and the likelihood that he would resume gang activity in the
future, which are permissible sentencing considerations.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --