Case ID: f-appx_269/html/0690-01.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. Paul Charles STEEVES, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Paul Charles Steeves, Defendant—Appellant.
    Nos. 07-10314, 07-10315.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 26, 2008 .
    Filed March 11, 2008.
    Barbara J. Valliere, Esq., Elise Becker, Esq., USSF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Hilary A. Fox, Esq., FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Paul Charles Steeves appeals from the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for mailing threatening communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c), and false information and hoaxes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Steeves contends that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because it failed to properly weigh the factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), especially the need to protect the public. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, and that the 27-month sentence is reasonable. See Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-98,169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

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