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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. TAR VUELL C LAR

K, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50148

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00607-SVW -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ste phe n V. W ilson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d July

2, 2015 ** B e fore : HUG, FAR

R IS, an d C ANB Y, C irc uit Judge s . Tarvue ll C la

rk a p pe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle n ge s the 46-m onth se nte nc e im

pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for a s sa

ult re sulting in se

rious bodily

injury , in viola

t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 113(a )(6). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL E D JUL 07 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C la

rk c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt proc e dura lly e rre d at se nte nc i ng by

not e xplic itly a ddre ssing his a

rgum e nts for why

a lowe r se nte nc e wa s a

p propria te , by re ly ing on c le arly e rrone ous fa c ts, a nd by fa iling to c onside r m itiga ting fa c tors. B e c a use C l ark did not obje c t on the se grounds be low, we re vie w for pla in e rror. Se e Unite d State

s v . Vale nc ia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th C ir. 2010); Unite d State s v . Dallman , 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th C ir. 2008). The re c ord shows tha

t the distric t c ourt wa s a

w are of C la

rk’ s stra ightforwa

rd and unc om

plic at e d a rgum e nts for a

lowe r se nte nc e an d tha

t the c ourt provide d re a s ons for the se nt e nc e , whic h wa s at the bottom of the Guide line s ran ge . Thus, C la rk ha s not shown tha

t the distric t c ourt fa ile d to a d e q uat e ly a ddre ss his argum e nts for a

lowe r se nte nc e and ha s not shown tha t the re is a

re a sona b le proba b ility tha t the se nte nc e would ha

ve be e n diffe re nt a

bse nt the a lle ge d e rror. Se e R ita v . Unite d State

s , 551 U.S. 338, 356-59 (2007); Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992, 995 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba n c ); Unite d State

s v . C arte r , 560 F.3d 1107, 1117-19 (9th C ir. 2009). C la rk c onte nds tha

t, at se nte n c ing, thedistric t c ourt re lie d on c le arly e rrone ous fa c ts whe n it c ite d a gove rnm e nt m e m orandum m isc ha ra c t e riz ing C la rk’ s a s sa ult a s a surprise atta c k. Howe v e r, C la rk a sse rts no fa c t s tha

t would show tha t the re wa s pla in e rror. 2C la

rk a lso a rgue s tha t the distric t

c o urt fa ile d to c onside r c e rta in m itiga ting fa c t ors at se nte nc i ng. The re is nothing in the re c o rd tha

t indic ate s the c ourt fa ile d to c o nside r any

of the re l e va

nt fa c ts or the§ 3553(a) fa c t ors. The distric t c ourt did not pla inly

e rr. Se e C

arty , 520 F.3d a

t 992 (holding tha

t the distric t c ourt “ ne e d not tic k off e a c h of the § 3553(a) fa c tors to show tha t it ha s c onside re d the m ” ). C la rk ne xt c o nte nds tha

t his se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble in light of m itiga t ing fa c tors a

nd the ne e d to a

v oid unwa

rrante d se nte nc ing dispa

ritie s. The distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in im

posing C la

rk’ s se nte nc e . Se eGall v
. Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); Unite d State s v . Gutie rre

z–Sanc he z , 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ The we i ght to be give n the va rious fa c tors in a pa rtic u la r c a se is for the disc re tion of thedistric t c ourt.” ). The 46-m onth se nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona

ble in light of all the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) se nte n c i ng fa c t ors a n d the tota lity

of the c irc um s ta

nc e s, inc luding but not lim ite d to C la

rk’ s m otive s for c om

m itting the

offe nse , the a ge of his prior offe nse s, a nd the ne e d to avoid unwa

rrante d s e nte nc i ng dispa

ritie s. S e e Gall , 552 U.S. a

t 51; Unite d State

s v . Tre a dw e ll , 593 F.3d 990, 1011-12 (9th C ir. 2010). Fina lly , C la

rk argue s tha

t the writte n judgm e nt m

ust be am e nde d by

de le ting the c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se that he “ subm it to one drug te st within 15 da y s of re l e a se from

im prisonm e nt a

nd two pe riodic drug te sts the re a fte r,” be c a use he 3wa s not ora lly a dvise d of the c ondition a t se nte n c ing. The im

p osition of this sta nda rd and m andatory

c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se is de e m e d to be im plic it in an ora l se nte n c e im

p o sing supe rvise d re le a s e , a nd the re fore the c ondition wa s prope rly inc lude d in thewritte n

judgm e nt. S

e e 18 U.S.C . § 3583(d); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(a )(4); Unite d State s v . N apie r , 463 F.3d 1040, 1042-43 (9th C ir. 2006). AFFIRM E D .

4