Case ID: f-appx_451/html/0683-01.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. Dennis Ray EAGLE, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-30231.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 4, 2011.
    Lori Anne Harper Suek, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Robert Henry Branom, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dennis Ray Eagle appeals from the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) and 2242(2)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Eagle contends that his sentence, which was above the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, was substantively unreasonable. Numerous factors, including Eagle’s violent history, psychological profile, and previous rejection of court-ordered treatment, supported the district court’s determination that a within-Guidelines sentence was inadequate to punish Eagle and to protect the public from his further crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 8553(a). The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Eagle also contends that the district court failed to explain its sentence sufficiently. This contention is belied by the record, which reflects that the district court explained its decision in detail and “ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

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