Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Joseph BENSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-10
Citations: 542 F. App'x 569
Docket Number: No. 13-50019
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Joseph BENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 542
Pages: 569–570

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Joseph BENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50019.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 7, 2013.
Filed Oct. 10, 2013.
Joshua C. Mellor, Assistant U.S., Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kurt David Hermansen, Esquire, Law Office of Kurt David Hermansen, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, 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
Richard Benson appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction by a jury of misdemeanor assault on a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
We review a district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts of a case for abuse of discretion. United States v. Gardas-Guerrero, 635 F.3d 435, 438 (9th Cir.2010). The district court did not abuse its discretion here. It properly referred to the statutory index in Appendix A of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) to select the guideline applicable to the offense for which Benson was convicted. United States v. Talcaha-shi, 205 F.3d 1161, 1166 (9th Cir.2000). The index lists U.S.S.G. § 2A2.4 as the guideline applicable to a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 111. Section 2A2.4, in turn, cites specifically to 18 U.S.C. § 111 and takes into account that the offense of conviction involved a federal officer acting in the course of his duty.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.