United States of America v. Charles Molnar

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHARLES MOLNAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50428
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01340-JLS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Charles Molnar appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 188-month concurrent sentences imposed following his guilty-plea convictions
for receipt and possession of material involving the sexual exploitation of minors,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) and (a)(4)(B). We have jurisdiction under
* 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
APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-50428
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Molnar contends that the district court erred by increasing his sentence based
on facts that were not alleged in the indictment nor proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. This argument fails because the court’s factual findings affected neither the
statutory maximum sentence nor any mandatory minimum sentence applicable to
Molnar’s conviction, and, therefore, the Sixth Amendment was not violated. See
United States v. Vallejos, 742 F.3d 902, 906-07 (9th Cir. 2014).
Molnar next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
of the mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Molnar’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The high-
end 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.
Furthermore, the record reflects that the district court considered Molnar’s
mitigating arguments.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --