Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clement David KING, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-16
Citations: 588 F. App'x 630
Docket Number: No. 13-30057
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clement David KING, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 588
Pages: 630–631

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clement David KING, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-30057.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 11, 2014.
Filed Dec. 16, 2014.
Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, Laura Bissett Weiss, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David F. Ness, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Following his conviction for sexual abuse of a minor and attempted receipt of child pornography, Clement King was sentenced to 365 months' imprisonment. On appeal, a panel of this court vacated his sentence after determining that the district court committed procedural error in calculating King's Sentencing Guidelines range. United States v. King, 468 Fed.Appx. 734 (9th Cir.2012). On remand, the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range as 151 to 188 months, but imposed the same sentence of 365 months' imprisonment. In this appeal, King asserts that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for "abuse of discretion." United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). We may only vacate the sentence if we have "a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing the relevant factors." United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir.2009). In light of this deferential standard of review, we AFFIRM.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.