United States v. Ron Whiteman ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 29 2010
    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. 09-30123
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:08-CR-00036-RFC
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    RON ONEIDA WHITEMAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Montana
    Richard F. Cebull, Chief District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 16, 2010 **
    Before:        SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    Ron Oneida Whiteman appeals from the 293-month sentence imposed
    following his guilty-plea conviction for aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of
    *
    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).
    EOH/Research
    
    18 U.S.C. §§ 1153
    (a) and 2241(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    Whiteman contends that the district court erred by denying a sentencing
    reduction for acceptance of responsibility on the ground that, while awaiting
    sentencing, he committed a new, unrelated crime. This contention fails under
    United States v. Mara, 
    523 F.3d 1036
    , 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2008). Whiteman further
    contends that the resulting sentence is unreasonable. The record reflects that the
    district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    ,
    993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Additionally, in light of the totality of the
    circumstances, including the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) sentencing factors, the district
    court’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See 
    id.
    AFFIRMED.
    EOH/Research                               2                                    09-30123
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-30123

Judges: Schroeder, Pregerson, Rawlinson

Filed Date: 3/29/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024