United States v. Vince Whiteman

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 17 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30272
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:12-cr-00067-DWM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
VINCE LEE WHITEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Vince Lee Whiteman challenges the 62-month sentence imposed by the
district court following his jury-trial conviction for assault with a dangerous
weapon and aiding and abetting assault with a dangerous weapon, 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).
18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 113(a)(3), and 1153(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Whiteman contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
the district court gave excessive weight to the circumstances of the offense and the
Guidelines range, and insufficient weight to his individual characteristics and
history and to the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. The district
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Whiteman’s sentence. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The disparity
between Whiteman’s sentence and the sentence imposed on a co-defendant was
warranted and, notwithstanding Whiteman’s difficult childhood and history of
addiction, his within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121
(9th Cir. 2009) (sentencing disparity); Carty, 520 F.3d at 993 (court considers
totality of the circumstances when determining substantive reasonableness).
To the extent that Whiteman claims that the district court’s explanation of
the sentence was inadequate, there was no plain error in the court’s lengthy
explanation. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th
Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-30272