United States v. Kelaukila Estabilio

facts of this case are unique and explained at length why an upward variance was

justified. The court was not required to say more. See United States v. Carty, 520

F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Estabilio also argues that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. Under

the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by

imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,

51 (2007). Contrary to Estabilio’s arguments, the court was not required to accord

more weight to her post-sentencing rehabilitation, or less weight to the fact that the

true victims of Estabilio’s fraud were the at-risk children served by her employer.

See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The

weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the

district court.”). Moreover, the court’s remarks at sentencing do not at all resemble

the kind of “undisciplined and unjudicial surrender to hot blood” that has

previously justified a vacatur and remand by this court. United States v. Duhart,

496 F.2d 941, 946 (9th Cir. 1974).

AFFIRMED.

…