Case ID: f-appx_511/html/0635-01.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. Adrian Uriah Broken ROPE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30146.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 7, 2013.
    
    Filed March 13, 2013.
    Eric Vincent Carroll, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, J. Bishop Grewell, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorneys, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark S. Werner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, DMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TASHIMA, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Adrian Broken Rope appeals the sentence for his convictions of involuntary manslaughter and three counts of assault. We affirm.

Broken Rope asserts, for the first time, procedural error at his sentencing, so that claim is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 800 (9th Cir.2012). The district court was not required to list every factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). The district court delivered a “statement of reasons” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It sufficiently explained its decision to sentence Broken Rope to sixty months in prison, even though that was above the recommended range under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. This case did not require more elaborate explanation. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 995 (noting that a judge’s explanation of reasons will vary case-by-case). The reasoning behind the sentence was evident. There was no plain error.

The sentence was not substantively unreasonable. There is no presumption that an above-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The district court’s expressed desire to deter similar behavior in the community, the loss of life, and the severe injuries all support the sentence. It did not represent an abuse of discretion.

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