United States v. Clement King , 588 F. App'x 630 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30057
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00015-SEH-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CLEMENT DAVID KING,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 11, 2014
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Following his conviction for sexual abuse of a minor and attempted receipt
of child pornography, Clement King was sentenced to 365 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, a panel of this court vacated his sentence after determining that the
district court committed procedural error in calculating King’s Sentencing
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Guidelines range. United States v. King, 468 F. App’x 734 (9th Cir. 2012). On
remand, the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range as 151 to 188
months, but imposed the same sentence of 365 months’ imprisonment. In this
appeal, King asserts that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for “abuse of
discretion.” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
We may only vacate the sentence if we have “a definite and firm conviction that
the district court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached
upon weighing the relevant factors.” United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d
1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2009). In light of this deferential standard of review, we
AFFIRM.