United States v. Daniel Brown , 671 F. App'x 681 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              DEC 21 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-30324
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00117-SLG
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM*
    DANIEL ALAN BROWN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Alaska
    Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 14, 2016**
    Before:      WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Daniel Alan Brown appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges the 180-month sentence and lifetime of supervised release imposed
    following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of child pornography, in
    *
    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).
    violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28
    U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
    Brown contends that the district court procedurally erred by considering
    erroneous facts and by insufficiently explaining the sentence. The record reflects
    that, even if the district court misstated the duration of Brown’s illegal activity, that
    characterization did not affect Brown’s substantial rights. See United States v.
    Dallman, 
    533 F.3d 755
    , 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008). The court carefully explained the
    sentence in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and Brown’s arguments.
    Brown next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
    of mitigating factors such as his lack of prior criminal history, age, education, his
    cooperation with law enforcement and the likelihood that he will re-offend. The
    court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Brown’s sentence. See Gall v.
    United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007). The below- Guidelines sentence is
    substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the
    totality of the circumstances, including Brown’s admission that his independent
    attempts to curtail his interest in child pornography over a period of many years
    were unsuccessful. See 
    Gall, 552 U.S. at 51
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     15-30324
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-30324

Citation Numbers: 671 F. App'x 681

Filed Date: 12/21/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023