Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steward Ray PEPION, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-07
Citations: 236 F. App'x 316
Docket Number: No. 06-30500
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steward Ray PEPION, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 236
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steward Ray PEPION, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30500.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007 .
Filed June 7, 2007.
Joseph E. Thaggard, Esq., USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
R. Henry Branom, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Steward Ray Pepion appeals from his sentence of 120 months imposed following a guilty plea to assault on a federal employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) & (b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pepion contends that the district court erred in applying a six-level upward adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2, based on its finding that Pepion knew or had reasonable cause to believe that his victim was a law enforcement officer. Given that the victim was assaulted while wearing a police uniform and responding to an emergency call necessitated by Pep-ion's violent behavior, and given that Pep-ion had met the victim in his official capacity a number of times before the instant offense, the district court did not clearly err in imposing the six-level adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2, Application Note 4; cf. United States v. Sanchez, 914 F.2d 1355, 1363-64 (9th Cir.1990).
Pepion next contends that the district court failed to consider some of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and thus, that his sentence is unreasonable. We disagree. We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.