Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0637-01.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. Robert Ernest PEEPLES, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 11-30259.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 19, 2012.
    Cyndee Peterson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana Helena Branch Office, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Ernest Peeples, Jr., appeals from the 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Peeples contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the sentence, including how it weighed the psychosexual evaluation. The record reflects that the district court adequately explained the sentence and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Peeples also contends that the district court failed to appreciate adequately its discretion to vary from the child pornography Guidelines and erred by not categorically rejecting the child pornography Guidelines in this case. The record reflects that the court appreciated its discretion to vary from the child pornography Guidelines. It did not err in failing to reject them categorically. See United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 962-63 (9th Cir.2011).

Peeples also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court’s below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.

Peeples’s motion for judicial notice is denied.

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