NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10138
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-CR-00064-HDM-
WGC-1
v.
JUAN RAMON CABEZAS, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, McKEOWN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Juan Cabezas (Cabezas) pled guilty to one count each of mail fraud, bank
fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, and aggravated identity theft, and received
four concurrent 63-month sentences followed by a 24-month sentence to be served
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
consecutively. Cabezas appeals the district court’s imposition of an abuse of trust
enhancement, the court’s alleged failure to address the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), and the court’s purported
reliance on unreliable victim statements during sentencing. We affirm.
As Cabezas concedes, a factual and legal basis for the abuse of trust
enhancements exists. While his plea agreement did not contemplate the imposition
of this enhancement, the plea agreement was not binding on the court. Moreover,
the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence, and Cabezas had already
conceded that his Guidelines range fell within the neighborhood of sentences
imposed in similar cases. No further explanation was required under
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008)
(“A within-Guidelines sentence ordinarily needs little explanation . . . because both
the Commission and the sentencing judge have determined that the sentence
comports with the § 3553(a) factors and is appropriate in the ordinary case.”).
Finally, regardless of whether the victims’ statements at sentencing were
unreliable, they do not provide a basis for vacating Cabezas’ sentence because they
were not “demonstrably made the basis for the sentence.” United States v. Ibarra,
737 F.2d 825, 827 (9th Cir. 1984). Instead, the district court based Cabezas’
sentence on the amount of loss, Cabezas’ failure to stop embezzling money despite
an opportunity to walk away, the abuse of trust, and Cabezas’ payment of full
restitution.
AFFIRMED.