Case ID: f-appx_328/html/0485-01.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 Wesley BOREN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-30242.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 16, 2009.
    
    Filed July 6, 2009.
    Sean B. Hoar, Assistant U.S., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kristina Heilman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Thomas Wesley Boren, pro se.
    Before PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Thomas Wesley Boren appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Boren contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by failing to adequately explain the sentence, and by placing excessive weight on the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range. We review for plain error. See United States v. Knows His Gun, 438 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir.2006). The record reflects that the district court considered Boren’s arguments and applied the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir.2008). Further, there is no indication in the record that the district court gave undue weight to the Guidelines. We thus conclude that the district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Boren also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Au- tery, 555 F.3d 864, 877 (9th Cir.2009); see also Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.

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