Case ID: f-appx_276/html/0649-01.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. Daahuadd Sahhib STEWART, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 07-10275.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 22, 2008 .
    Filed May 2, 2008.
    Eric Johnson, AUSA, Robert L. Ellman, Esq., USLV — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Lloyd George, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rene L. Valladares, Esq., FPDNV— Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daahuadd Sahhib Stewart appeals from the 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for armed robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Stewart contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not impose a sentence below the Guideline’s range based on his mental health problems. He asserts that the district court gave improper weight to a report that concluded that he exaggerated his symptoms. The record reflects that the district court did not clearly err in this regard. See Gall v. United States, — U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (the district court commits a procedural error if it selects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts). Moreover, Stewart’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See id.

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