United States v. Santoyo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 5 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-82 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:22-cr-02025-MKD-1 v. MEMORANDUM* BRADLEY PAUL SANTOYO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Mary K. Dimke, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 4, 2024** Seattle, Washington Before: W. FLETCHER, BERZON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Bradley Paul Santoyo appeals the district court’s 60-month sentence following his guilty plea for possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we * 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). affirm. Santoyo contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an above-Guidelines sentence and declining to depart downwards under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.23 for time served in state custody. Where no procedural error is alleged, we consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 57 (2007). We also review the district court’s denial of discretionary departures as part of our review of the overall substantive reasonableness of the sentence. United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 987 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the above- Guidelines sentence, which is substantively reasonable considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The district court considered Santoyo’s arguments and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence, including Santoyo’s significant criminal history, the nature of the offense, the need to specifically deter Santoyo, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to protect the public. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). AFFIRMED. 2 24-82