United States v. Cannarozzi

── United States v. Cannarozzi ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-7479 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:24-cr-05054-DGE-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JOSEPH ANTHONY CANNAROZZI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington David G. Estudillo, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN and KOH, Circuit Judges. Joseph Anthony Cannarozzi (“Cannarozzi”) waived indictment and pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § * 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). 841(b)(1)(B) and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). As part of the underlying crime, Cannarozzi sold P.H. drugs that caused P.H.’s death. Cannarozzi appeals the district court’s restitution order, which compensated P.H.’s estate for costs associated with his death. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. “The legality of a restitution order is reviewed de novo . . . .” United States v. Gagarin, 950 F.3d 596, 607 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). “[I]f the order is within the statutory bounds, we review the amount for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Phillips, 367 F.3d 846, 854 (9th Cir. 2004). “[A]ny underlying factual findings [are] reviewed for clear error.” Gagarin, 950 F.3d at 607. “If the district court’s findings are plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, we cannot reverse even if we are convinced we would have found differently.” United States v. Torlai, 728 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation modified). 1. As part of his plea agreement, Cannarozzi agreed to waive his right to appeal, including the right to appeal any restitution order. Because we conclude that Cannarozzi’s appeal fails on the merits, we need not address Cannarozzi’s appeal waiver. United States v. Jacobo Castillo, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (appeal waiver is not jurisdictional). 2  2. Cannarozzi challenges the legality of the restitution order by arguing that P.H is not a victim eligible for restitution because: (1) P.H. was a “participant in the offense which Mr. Cannarozzi pleaded guilty to”; (2) the district court did not identify victims eligible for restitution in its Statement of Reasons filed at sentencing; and (3) the presentence investigation report did not identify any victims. We address each in turn. First, Cannarozzi does not cite any legal authority for the proposition that merely purchasing and consuming a controlled substance constitutes participation in the crime of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 841. Moreover, P.H.’s purchase does not constitute a commission of a 21 U.S.C. § 841 offense because it is undisputed that P.H. purchased the controlled substance for his own consumption. United States v