Case ID: f-appx_402/html/0189-01.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. Randall Allen BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30239.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 28, 2010.
    Amy Potter, Kemp L. Strickland, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Ellen C. Pitcher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, 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

Randall Allen Brown appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Brown contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by presuming that the Guidelines range was reasonable and by failing to explain why it was rejecting his arguments for a lower sentence. Brown further contends that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court made an individualized determination based on the facts, adequately explained the sentence, and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Additionally, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993-94.

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