Narrative Opinion Summary
John Matthew Lorentine appeals a 120-month sentence following his guilty plea for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(vii), and 846. The appellate court affirms the sentence, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the plea agreement and sentencing Lorentine beyond its terms, adequately considering the relevant factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Lorentine's arguments that the sentence was unreasonable due to a failure to consider mitigating evidence were also dismissed, with the court finding no procedural error and deeming the sentence substantively reasonable. The decision cites precedent from In re Morgan, Gall v. United States, and United States v. Carty. The ruling is not published and does not establish precedent under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consideration of Sentencing Factorssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A court must consider the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when determining a sentence.
Reasoning: The district court did not abuse its discretion... adequately considering the relevant factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Reasonableness of Sentencessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A sentence is deemed reasonable if there is no procedural error and it is substantively reasonable in light of the circumstances.
Reasoning: Lorentine's arguments that the sentence was unreasonable due to a failure to consider mitigating evidence were also dismissed, with the court finding no procedural error and deeming the sentence substantively reasonable.
Sentencing Discretion and Plea Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court is not bound by the terms of a plea agreement and can impose a sentence it deems appropriate within the statutory limits.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirms the sentence, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the plea agreement and sentencing Lorentine beyond its terms.
Unpublished Opinions and Precedential Valuesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An unpublished opinion does not establish precedent under specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The ruling is not published and does not establish precedent under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.