Narrative Opinion Summary
Gerald Lee Littlehead appeals a 120-month sentence, arguing its reasonableness. The court affirmed the sentence, stating it was reasonable when considering the totality of circumstances, as established in United States v. Carty. Appellate review focuses on the reasonableness of the sentence, with the district court having adequately considered the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The decision to impose a non-Guidelines sentence was given deference, and the district court did not disproportionately weigh any single factor in justifying the variance. The ruling is affirmed and noted as non-precedential, except under specific 9th Circuit rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review of Sentence Reasonablenesssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court evaluates the reasonableness of a sentence by examining the totality of circumstances, giving deference to the district court's decision.
Reasoning: The court affirmed the sentence, stating it was reasonable when considering the totality of circumstances, as established in United States v. Carty.
Consideration of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factorssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's consideration of the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) was deemed adequate, supporting the reasonableness of the sentence.
Reasoning: Appellate review focuses on the reasonableness of the sentence, with the district court having adequately considered the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Deference to District Court's Non-Guidelines Sentencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court defers to the district court's decision to impose a non-Guidelines sentence, as long as no single factor is disproportionately weighed.
Reasoning: The decision to impose a non-Guidelines sentence was given deference, and the district court did not disproportionately weigh any single factor in justifying the variance.
Non-Precedential Rulingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's ruling is designated as non-precedential, with applicability limited to specific rules within the 9th Circuit.
Reasoning: The ruling is affirmed and noted as non-precedential, except under specific 9th Circuit rules.