United States v. Robert Krebs ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 31 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10237
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:18-cr-00263-JGZ-JR-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT FRANCIS KREBS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Robert Francis Krebs appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 262-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for
armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). 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).
Krebs contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his
age and medical ailments. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and
the totality of the circumstances, including Krebs’s criminal history, the serious
nature of the offense conduct, and the harm caused to the victims of the offense.
See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d
904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular
case is for the discretion of the district court.”). Moreover, contrary to Krebs’s
contention, the record reflects that the district court considered his arguments and
the § 3553(a) factors, and thoroughly explained why a lower sentence was not
warranted. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-10237