United States v. Glenn Bosworth , 468 F. App'x 763 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50530
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00052-ODW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GLENN BOSWORTH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Glenn Bosworth appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction for use of interstate commerce to induce a minor to
engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. 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. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
Bosworth contends that the district court erred by discounting the
conclusions in the psychological reports and Bosworth’s lack of a criminal history.
The record reflects that the district court considered Bosworth’s psychological
reports, his rehabilitative efforts, and his personal circumstances as part of the
totality of the circumstances. The district court did not procedurally err, and
Bosworth’s sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the
circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“For a non-Guidelines
sentence, we are to give due deference to the district court’s decision that the
§ 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.”) (internal citation
and quotations omitted).
Because Bosworth is represented by counsel, only counsel may submit
filings and we therefore decline to consider the pro se briefing filed on March 30,
2011, September 6, 2011 and September 26, 2011.
Arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived. See
Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
Bosworth’s request to reassign this case to a different judge on remand is
denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50530