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. TIM OTHY GEOR GE DOR AN, De fe nda n t - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30209

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00001-R SL-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt S. La snik, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 13, 2015 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER and FISHER , C irc uit Judge s, a nd W ILKEN, Distric t Judge . ** Tim othy Dora n a ppe a ls his 99-month se nte nc e following his c onvic tion for fa iling to re giste r or upda t e re gistra tion a s a se x offe nde r unde r the Se x Offe nde r



# FIL E D OCT 23 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

b l e C la udia W ilke n, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de s igna tion.R e gistra

tion a nd Notific a tion Ac t (SOR N A), 18 U.S.C . § 2250(a ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd 18 U.S.C . § 3742(a ), and we a ffirm . 1. The distric t c ourt did not c le a rly e rr in finding by

c le ar and c onvinc ing e vide nc e tha

t Dora n kille d B ic h Ngoc Thi Nguy e n in Vie tna m in 2011. The gove rnm e nt pre se nte d c re d i ble e vide nc e tha t Dora n wa s rom antic a lly

involve d with Ngoc , he ha d thre at e ne d he r, he r body wa s found hidde n in his home , he fle d Vie tna m shortly a fte r he r de a th a

nd he im p lic ate d him se lf in the killing to five individuals following the

c rim e , inc luding two persons who te stifie d at a n e vide ntia ry he a ring be fore the d istric t c ourt. Although Dora n sugge sts he m ay have kille d Ngoc i n se l f-de fe nse , he a ba n done d tha

t the o ry in the distric t c ourt. B e c a use the c ourt’ s finding wa s ne ithe r illogic a l, im pla usible nor without support in infe re nc e s tha

t m ay be drawn from

the fa c ts in the re c ord, it is not c le arly e rrone ous. Se e Unite d

State s v . Pine da-Dov al , 692 F.3d 942, 944 (9th C ir. 2012). 2. Doran’ s 99-m onth se nte n c e is not substa ntive ly unre a sona

ble . The distric t c o urt a

pplie d a signific ant va

rianc e , im p osing a se nte nc e thre e tim e s the high e nd of the Guide line s ra nge . “ In de te rm ining substa ntive re a sona

ble ne ss, we are t o c onside r the tota l ity of the c irc um sta

n c e s , inc luding thede gre e of va rianc e for a s e nte nc e im

pose d outsidethe Guide line s ra nge ,” Unite d

State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ), but we m ay

not “pre sum e . . . tha

t a 2non-Guide l ine s se nte nc e is unre a sona ble ,” Unite d State

s v . Tre a dw e ll , 593 F.3d 990, 1009 (9th C ir. 2010). In a pply i ng the § 3553(a ) fa c tors, the distric t c ourt ga ve signific ant we i ght to Dora n’ s killing of Ngoc

in Vie t nam . The va

rianc e , howe ve r, wa s not im

pose d to punish Dora

n for this unc ha

rge d, unre late d c rim e , but to prote c t the public from

furthe r c rim e s by

Dora n. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a )(2)(C ). Give n Dora

n’ s se rious a

nd e sc a lating c rim e s of viole nc e a ga inst wom e n with whom he wa s rom antic a l ly

involve d in 1990, 1992 a nd 2011, a s we ll a s his nonc om p lia nc e with se xoffe n de r re gistra tion re quire m e nts, the distric t c ourt re a s ona bly c onc lude d Dora

n pre se nte d a

grave da nge r to the public , a

nd tha t a le ngthy se nte nc e , still we ll within the sta tutory m a xim um , wa s suffic ie n t but no gre ate r tha

n ne c e ssa ry to a c c o m plish thepurpose s of § 3553(a). Se e Unite d State s v . Gutie r re z-Sanc he z , 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ T he we ight to begive n the v arious fa c tors in a

pa rtic u la r c a se is for the disc re tion of thedistric t c o urt.” ); Unite d State s v . Mohame d , 459 F.3d 979, 988-89 (9th C ir. 2006) (a ffirm ing a 60- m onth se n te nc e for m aking a phony bom b thre at, e ve n though it fa r e xc e e de d the Guide line s ra

nge of 12-18 m onths). AFFIRM E D.

3