Case ID: f-appx_654/html/0266-01.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. Maxwell APATA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30161
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    May 31, 2016
    Justin Arnold, Carl Andrew Colasurdo, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Helen J. Brun-ner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. ■ Attorney, Teal Luthy Miller, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    John Henry Browne, Attorney, Michael Terry Lee, Law Offices of John Henry Browne, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Defendanb-Appellant.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maxwell Apata appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for assault, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Apata contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencias-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Apata next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court (1) varied upward based on factors that were already incorporated into the Guidelines range, (2) failed to account for alleged sentencing disparities, and (3) based the sentence on its personal feelings regarding domestic violence. The sentence is not an abuse of discretion in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Moreover, the court did not err by varying upward based upon its determination that the Guidelines range did not adequately account for the egregiousness of Apata’s conduct. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.