United States v. Charles Reevis

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-30100
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00103-RMP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES JOSEPH REEVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Charles Joseph Reevis appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 41-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
assault with a dangerous weapon in Indian Country, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
*
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).
§§ 1153(a) and 113(a)(3). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
Reevis contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain adequately the sentence and by failing to respond to his sentencing
arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,
608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the
district court considered Reevis’s arguments and sufficiently explained the
sentence. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The
record further belies Reevis’s contention that the district court presumed that the
Guidelines were reasonable.
Reevis next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
of the mitigating factors and because he did not receive custody credit for time
spent in tribal custody. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Reevis’s sentence. 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 the seriousness
of the offense and the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also
United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The
2 14-30100
weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the
district court.”).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-30100