Case ID: f-appx_388/html/0700-01.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. Christopher HUITT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30351.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 16, 2010.
    
    Filed July 20, 2010.
    Anthony G. Hall, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Wendy J. Olson, Assistant U.S., Office of The U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Dennis Michael Charney, Charney & Associates, Eagle, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Christopher Huitt appeals the sentence that he received on remand. We affirm.

Huitt argues that we should reverse his sentence because the district court abused its discretion by (1) not recalculating the Guidelines upon re-sentencing, and (2) unreasonably applying the Guidelines’ distribution enhancement, which failed to account for variation in the number of images distributed. These arguments are unpersuasive.

The mandate did not require the district court to go through the motions of recalculating the Guidelines range. United States v. Huitt, 316 Fed.Appx. 595, 596 (9th Cir.2009). But even if it had, the district court correctly recalculated the Guidelines range. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Additionally, even if the inclusion of the child pornography distribution enhancement was unreasonable, the district court properly considered the section 3553(a) factors and adequately explained the sentence, rendering the sentence as a whole substantively reasonable. See United States v. Barsumyan, 517 F.3d 1154, 1158-59 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.