Case ID: f-appx_276/html/0696-02.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. Richard REDFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-30325.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 22, 2008.
    
    Filed May 5, 2008.
    James E. Seykora, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Steven C. Babcock, Esq., Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, 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

Richard Redfield appeals from the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea for depredation of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1361. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Redfield contends that, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court did not adequately consider and explain the reasons for its sentence. This contention is belied by the record. See Rita v. United States, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (stating that the district court need not tick off each of the section 3553(a) factors to show that it had considered them).

We also conclude that Redfield’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances of this case. See Gall v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (explaining that sentencing judges are “in a superior position to find facts and judge them import under § 3553(a)”).

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