United States v. Eleno Feliciano

Eleno Colin Feliciano appeals from the 64-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Feliciano contends that his mid-range Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because: (1) the district court overstated the seriousness of the offense, (2) the district court ignored mitigating personal information and focused on recidivism, and (3) the 64-month sentence is greater than necessary to comply with the sentencing purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C § 3553.

The record reflects that the district court properly weighed and considered the section 3553 factors. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Under the circumstances of this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a mid-range Guidelines sentence, and the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. Id. at 993-94 ; United States v. Ringgold, 571 F.3d 948, 953 (9th Cir.2009) (upholding the district court’s sentence and determination that appellant’s prior imprisonment “has not made a…