United States v. Ronald Mullenberg , 391 F. App'x 663 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-30320, 09-30321

Citation Numbers: 391 F. App'x 663

Judges: Beezer, Hug, Skopil

Filed Date: 8/6/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023