United States v. Karjala

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 25 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-5803 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:13-cr-00164-JAM-1 v. MEMORANDUM* SEAN ERIN KARJALA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2026 ** Before: CANBY, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Sean Erin Karjala appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 360-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* 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).

Karjala first contends the district court failed to explain the within- Guidelines sentence adequately. Contrary to Karjala’s assertion, we review this claim for plain error. See United States v. Bradford, 148 F.4th 699, 708 (9th Cir. 2025). Under any standard of review, however, Karjala’s claim is unavailing. The district court explained that the seriousness of the offense and the harm to the victim supported a sentence at the high end, rather than the low end, of the Guidelines range. It elected to run the sentence concurrently to Karjala’s state sentence, however, to avoid imposing an effective life sentence. This explanation, which reflects the court’s consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the parties’ arguments, is sufficient. See id. at 708-09.

Karjala next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable given his mitigating circumstances and the alleged disparity between his sentence and the sentences of other similarly culpable offenders. Karjala has not shown any abuse of discretion by the district court, however. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). As the district court stated, Karjala did not show that any sentencing disparity was unwarranted, and the within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-5803