Case ID: f-appx_530/html/0665-02.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 Bruce HIATT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30290.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 21, 2013.
    Timothy M. Durkin, Assistant U.S., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWA-Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendanb-Appellant.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, 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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Bruce Hiatt appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 71-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for one count of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2; seven counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2; and one count of witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(3) and 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hiatt contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the basis for imposing a 71-month sentence, by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, by treating the Guidelines as presumptively mandatory, and by presuming the Guidelines range was reasonable. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered Hiatt’s arguments and the section 3553(a) factors. The court also adequately explained the reasons for the sentence and did not treat the Guidelines as either presumptively mandatory or reasonable.

Hiatt also contends that his 71-month sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his lack of extensive criminal history, his age, and the non-violent nature of his convictions. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Hiatt’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence at the top of the Guidelines is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, which include substantial financial losses for multiple victims over an extended period of time. See id.

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