Case ID: f-appx_530/html/0660-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas William CRIMMINS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30260.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 21, 2013.
    Judith Harper, Assistant U.S., USME-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Medford, OR, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Brian C. Butler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Medford, OR, for Defen-dan1>-Appellant.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Thomas William Crimmins appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 480-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for four counts of mailing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1); four counts of distributing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1); and two counts of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5) and 2256(8). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Crimmins contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review for abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 480-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and circumstances of the offense. See id.

To the extent that Crimmins contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing, the record supports the district court’s conclusion regarding Crim-mins’s dangerousness and the court adequately explained the sentence.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.