Case ID: f-appx_455/html/0769-01.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. Michael Eugene HOLLIS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-10445.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Aug. 31, 2011.
    Filed Oct. 27, 2011.
    David L. Gappa, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Victor M. Chavez, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FISHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WU, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael Eugene Hollis appeals from his resentencing following his conviction for distributing child pornography.

1. The district properly applied a vulnerable victim enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1), because “a district court can apply the vulnerable victim enhancement where a child is so young and small that he or she is less able to resist than other child victims of pornography.” United States v. Lynn, 636 F.3d 1127, 1138-39 (9th Cir.2011) (citation omitted). The evidence showed that Hollis should have known that he possessed images and videos of children as young as two and four because some of the filenames referred to the ages of the children depicted.

2. Hollis has not shown that the district court failed to follow our mandate on remand. We directed the district court not to apply U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B), and the district court followed that directive. It was within the district court’s discretion to resentence Hollis to 200 months. Nothing in the record indicates that the district court failed to appreciate its discretion under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007).

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