Case ID: f-appx_654/html/0322-01.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. Edgar Nelson PITTS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10085
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 20, 2016
    Dawrence Wayne Rice, Jr., Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael S. Frye, DOJ—USAO, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Paul Balazs, Attorney, Law Offices of John P. Balazs, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edgar Nelson Pitts appeals the 150-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for voluntary manslaughter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1112. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pitts contends that his high-end, fully consecutive sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the circumstances of the offense and the length of his two undischarged sentences. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Pitts’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 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 of the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128-S.Ct. 586.

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