USA V. CESAR MOLINA MUNOZ, No. 23-50033 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-50033 D.C. No. 2:21-cr-00509-MCS-1 v. MEMORANDUM* CESAR ORENSO MOLINA MUNOZ, AKA Miguel Alcoba, AKA Cesar Castillo Munoz, AKA Kevin Estuardo Molina, AKA Cezar Orenso Molina Munoz, AKA Cesar Munoz, AKA Kevin Noriega, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 12, 2023** Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Cesar Orenso Molino Munoz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for * 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). wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Munoz contends that the district court failed to address sufficiently the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and his mitigating arguments and failed to explain adequately its sentencing decision. The district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The court fully considered the § 3553(a) factors and Munoz’s arguments, and highlighted those factors most relevant to its decision, including the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect the public. The court offered sufficient explanation to allow meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Contrary to Munoz’s contention, the court did not rely on any clearly erroneous fact. Munoz also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable given the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities and his traumatic personal history, among other mitigating factors. The court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable under the § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the serious nature of the offense and the vulnerability of Munoz’s victim. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 23-50033
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
