United States v. Ronald Mullenberg

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 09-30320, 09-30321
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00169-RFC-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RONALD ALLEN MULLENBERG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Richard F. Cebull, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 7, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-appellant Ronald Allen Mullenberg (“Mullenberg”) appeals from
a final judgment convicting him of two counts of abusive sexual contact, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152, 2244(a)(1) & (C). Mullenberg pleaded guilty to
*
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).
the crimes without a plea agreement, and the district court sentenced him to 121
months imprisonment. We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm. The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not
repeat them.
We review “all sentencing decisions” for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
The determination of whether a sentence is substantively reasonable is
“guided by the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the
sentencing range established by the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v.
Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006).
Here, contrary to Mullenberg’s assertions, the record indicates that the
district court engaged in a “thorough and thoughtful consideration of the § 3553
factors” and properly exercised its discretion by imposing a sentence within the
applicable guidelines sentencing range. United States v. Cabaccang, 481 F.3d
1176, 1188 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2