Case ID: f-appx_236/html/0316-01.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. Steward Ray PEPION, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-30500.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2007 .
    Filed June 7, 2007.
    
      Joseph E. Thaggard, Esq., USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    R. Henry Branom, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Steward Ray Pepion appeals from his sentence of 120 months imposed following a guilty plea to assault on a federal employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a)(1) & (b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pepion contends that the district court erred in applying a six-level upward adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2, based on its finding that Pepion knew or had reasonable cause to believe that his victim was a law enforcement officer. Given that the victim was assaulted while wearing a police uniform and responding to an emergency call necessitated by Pep-ion’s violent behavior, and given that Pep-ion had met the victim in his official capacity a number of times before the instant offense, the district court did not clearly err in imposing the six-level adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2, Application Note 4; cf. United States v. Sanchez, 914 F.2d 1355, 1363-64 (9th Cir.1990).

Pepion next contends that the district court failed to consider some of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and thus, that his sentence is unreasonable. We disagree. We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable.

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