Case ID: f-appx_562/html/0554-01.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. Amanda FRIER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10469.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2014.
    
    Filed March 13, 2014.
    Cristina D. Silva, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Anthony Humphreys, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alina Maria Shell, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Amanda Frier appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Frier first contends that the district court did not consider her mitigating arguments. The record belies this contention. Frier next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of her history and characteristics. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Frier’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The low-end Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Frier’s criminal history and the need to protect the public. See id.

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