Narrative Opinion Summary
Gerald Lee Littlehead appeals his 120-month sentence, which has been deemed reasonable based on the totality of circumstances. The appellate review focuses on the reasonableness of the sentence, following the precedent set in United States v. Carty. The district court properly considered the relevant factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For non-Guidelines sentences, deference is given to the district court's assessment that the § 3553(a) factors collectively justify the variance. The court did not assign excessive weight to any specific factor in deciding on the variance. The decision is affirmed, and this disposition is not for publication nor serves as precedent, except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review of Sentence Reasonablenesssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviews the reasonableness of a sentence by considering the totality of circumstances, following the precedent established in United States v. Carty.
Reasoning: Gerald Lee Littlehead appeals his 120-month sentence, which has been deemed reasonable based on the totality of circumstances. The appellate review focuses on the reasonableness of the sentence, following the precedent set in United States v. Carty.
Consideration of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factorssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court properly considered the relevant factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when determining the sentence.
Reasoning: The district court properly considered the relevant factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Deference to District Court's Sentencing Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: For non-Guidelines sentences, the appellate court gives deference to the district court's assessment that the § 3553(a) factors collectively justify the variance.
Reasoning: For non-Guidelines sentences, deference is given to the district court's assessment that the § 3553(a) factors collectively justify the variance.
Non-Precedential Dispositionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case is not published and does not serve as precedent except as specified by the court rules.
Reasoning: The decision is affirmed, and this disposition is not for publication nor serves as precedent, except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Weight of Sentencing Factorssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court did not assign excessive weight to any specific factor in deciding the variance of the sentence.
Reasoning: The court did not assign excessive weight to any specific factor in deciding on the variance.