Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Ralph MARQUIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-29
Citations: 649 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 15-30130
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Ralph MARQUIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 649
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Ralph MARQUIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30130.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 26, 2016.
Filed April 29, 2016.
Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, Michael S. Lahr, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee..
David F. Ness, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P, 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Christopher Ralph Marquis appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Marquis contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Marquis's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense and the need to afford adequate deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.