United States v. Thomas Hoover , 656 F. App'x 282 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10358
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00072-RCJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
THOMAS RONALD HOOVER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Thomas Ronald Hoover appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(2). 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).
Hoover contends that the district court improperly included a criminal
history point for a 2009 misdemeanor Nevada state conviction for possession of
paraphernalia, the fact of which Hoover argues the government failed to prove.
We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error, see United States v.
Felix, 561 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2009), and find none. The district court did
not clearly err in finding that Hoover had been convicted for possession of
paraphernalia based on the presentence report and the probation officer’s account
of what was reflected in the Nevada state court docket sheet. See United States v.
Marin-Cuevas, 147 F.3d 889, 895 (9th Cir. 1998).
Hoover next contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
address his mitigating arguments. The record reflects that the district court
adequately considered Hoover’s mitigating arguments, which Hoover asserted in
his sentencing memorandum and again at the sentencing hearing, and adequately
explained the sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).
Finally, Hoover contends that his 42-month above-Guidelines sentence is
substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating circumstances surrounding his
possession of the firearm and his physical and mental health. The district court did
not abuse its discretion in imposing Hoover’s sentence. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18
2 15-10358
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
Hoover’s lengthy criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-10358