United States v. Ronald Smith ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-30060
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:17-cr-00055-SPW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RONALD ANDREW SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 27, 2018*
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Andrew Smith appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 240-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
*
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).
affirm.
Smith contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district
court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,
including the danger to the public posed by Smith’s flight from law enforcement in
connection with the offense and on prior occasions, and his extensive criminal
history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Contrary to Smith’s argument, the sentence
received by a defendant in another case does not show that Smith’s sentence is
unreasonable. See United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1011-12 (9th Cir.
2010). Moreover, the court properly considered several aggravating and mitigating
factors, not just sentencing disparities, in fashioning the sentence. See id.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-30060