Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0482-01.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. Christopher Bradley CHASE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30136
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 20, 2017
    Zeno Benjamin Baucus, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    Gillian Elissa Gosch, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana (Billings), Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Chase’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Christopher Bradley Chase appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 32-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Chase contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his pre-sentencing rehabilitation and the minimal risk he believes he poses to the public in view of his recovery. The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Chase’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court varied downward 14 months to account for Chase’s mitigating circumstances. The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the number and nature of the guns Chase obtained and the other circumstances of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

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