United States v. Damion Loneman ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 17 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    16-30309
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:16-cr-00105-BLW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    DAMION RYAN LONEMAN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Idaho
    B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 15, 2017**
    Before:      CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    Damion Ryan Loneman challenges the 172-month sentence imposed
    following his guilty-plea conviction for assault with intent to commit murder, in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 113
    (a)(1) and 1153. 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).
    Loneman contends that the district court erred in failing to provide notice to
    the parties, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h), of its intent to
    depart from the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. We review for plain error
    and find none. See United States v. Cruz-Perez, 
    567 F.3d 1142
    , 1146 (9th Cir.
    2009). The record shows that the district court relied on the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)
    factors when it imposed a sentence above the Guidelines range agreed upon by the
    parties. Because the court’s sentence was the result of a variance under
    section 3553(a), not a departure based on a provision of the Guidelines, Rule 32(h)
    does not apply. See Irizarry v. United States, 
    553 U.S. 708
    , 714 (2008).
    Loneman also contends that his sentence is arbitrary and unreasonable. The
    district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Loneman’s sentence. See
    Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is
    substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the
    totality of the circumstances, including Loneman’s violent criminal history, the
    need to protect the public, and the seriousness of the offense. See Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    16-30309
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-30309

Judges: Canby, Trott, Graber

Filed Date: 11/17/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024