N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C HR ISTOPHER

AR M ELLIO B ARLESE, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10084

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-00017-LR

H-W GC -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 17, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , WARDLAW , a n d OW EN S, C irc uit Judge s. C hristophe r Arm e llio B arle se a ppe a l s his se nte nc e a fte r ple a ding guilty to
a ssa ult with a da nge rous we a

pon in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 113(a )(3), 1151 a nd 1153. Appa

re ntly unde r the influe nc e of m ind-a lte ring drugs, hea ssa ulte d a n e lde rly m an in his home , a nd sta bbe d him twe nty -nine tim e s. 

# FIL ED D EC 12 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.1. B arle se ’ s princ ipa l a rgum e nt on a

ppe a l is tha

t the distric t c ourt im prope rly c onside re d his re ha

bilita tion ne e d s in im

posing these nte nc e , in viola tion of Tapia v . Unite d State s , 564 U.S. 319 (2011), a nd Unite d State

s v . Tapia , 665 F.3d 1059 (9th C ir. 2011). W e re vie w for pla in e rror. The Supre m e C ourt in Tapia re c o gniz e d tha t a c ourt is prohibite d from

“ im posing or le ngthe ning a

prison te rm

to prom ote an offe nde r’ s re ha bilita tion.” 564 U.S. a

t 332; se ealso 18 U.S.C . § 3582(a ) (providing tha t im prisonm e nt is “not
an a p propria te m e ans of prom oting c orre c tion a nd re ha bilita tion” ). The re wa s no pla i n e rror in this c a se . In se nte nc ing a bove the Guide line s ra

nge , the distric t c ourt e xpre s sly took into ac c ount thea

ppropria te fa c tors unde r § 3553(a )(2). Although it
re c o gniz e d tha

t the de fe n d ant ha s se rious m e nta l he a lth issue s, the c ourt did not sugge s t tha

t the se nte nc e itse l f wa s im pose d out of c onc e rn for re h a bilita tion ne e ds. 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

im posing a substa ntive ly unre a sona

b l e se nte nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th C i r. 2008). The distric t c ourt e xpre ssly note d tha t it “ sta rte d at the [G] uide line s” in c a lc ulating B arle se ’ s se nte nc e and ga ve “ gre at de fe re nc e ” to the pa rtie s ’ se nte nc ing re c o m

m e ndation, but tha

t the c i rc um sta

nc e s of the offe nse and B arle se ’ s c rim i na l history wa rrante d its re

je c tion of theple a

a g re e m e nt a

nd upwa rd de pa rture from

the Guide line s range . Sim ila rly , the distric t c ourt e xpla i ne d tha t it
2wa s “ fully

aware of the de fe nda

nt’ s m e nta l he a l th issue s, his drug history , his fam ily history ” and inc orporate d into its a n a ly sis thelike l ihood tha

t those fa c tors c ontribute d to B arle se ’ s c rim i na l re c ord. Fina lly , the re c ord doe s not indic ate tha t the d istric t c o urt wa s influe nc e d in its se nte nc i ng de t e rm i nation by the gove rnm e nt’ s vic tim

im pa c t e vide nc e , be c a

use a l l suc h e v ide nc e wa s a va ila ble
e lse whe re in the re c ord. AFFIRM E D.

3