United States v. Michael Hollis , 455 F. App'x 769 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10445
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:08-cr-00276-OWW-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL EUGENE HOLLIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 31, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: FISHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WU, District Judge.**
Michael Eugene Hollis appeals from his resentencing following his
conviction for distributing child pornography.
1. The district properly applied a vulnerable victim enhancement
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1), because “a district court can apply the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the Central
District of California, sitting by designation.
vulnerable victim enhancement where a child is so young and small that he or she
is less able to resist than other child victims of pornography.” United States v.
Lynn, 636 F.3d 1127, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). The evidence
showed that Hollis should have known that he possessed images and videos of
children as young as two and four because some of the filenames referred to the
ages of the children depicted.
2. Hollis has not shown that the district court failed to follow our
mandate on remand. We directed the district court not to apply U.S.S.G. §
2G2.2(b)(3)(B), and the district court followed that directive. It was within the
district court’s discretion to resentence Hollis to 200 months. Nothing in the
record indicates that the district court failed to appreciate its discretion under
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2