United States v. Donell Hatcher , 464 F. App'x 573 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    DEC 27 2011
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 10-10591
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00625-WBS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    DONELL HATCHER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 19, 2011 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    Donell Hatcher appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed following his
    guilty-plea conviction for failure to appear, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3146
    (a)(1).
    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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Hatcher contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
    consider all of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors and by failing to explain adequately its
    reasons for the sentence imposed. The record belies Hatcher’s contentions. The
    district court is not required to refer to each § 3553(a) factor. See United States v.
    Mix, 
    457 F.3d 906
    , 912-13 (9th Cir. 2006). The district court’s explanation of
    Hatcher’s sentence was sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    , 992,
    995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
    Hatcher also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
    Hatcher’s contentions that the district court erred in declining to apply a downward
    adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, and in rejecting his argument that his
    criminal history category overrepresented his criminal history, are not supported by
    the record. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors
    set forth in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a), the within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. See
    Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      10-10591
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-10591

Citation Numbers: 464 F. App'x 573

Judges: Goodwin, Wallace, McKeown

Filed Date: 12/27/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024