Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Collin Michael BAIRD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-28
Citations: 566 F. App'x 571
Docket Number: No. 13-50044
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Collin Michael BAIRD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 566
Pages: 571–571

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Collin Michael BAIRD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50044.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 18, 2013.
Filed March 28, 2014.
Anne Kristina Perry, Bruce R. Castet-ter, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Shereen Joy Charlick, Esquire, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, 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
Collin Michael Baird challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for receipt of images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Baird contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his argument that the district court should exercise its discretion under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) to vary downward. Because Baird did not object on these grounds in the district court, we review for plain error and Baird is therefore required to show that there is an error that is plain and that affects substantial rights because there is a reasonable probability that the sentence would have been different absent the alleged error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir.2008). Because the district court explained its reasons for the downward variance and sentence and there is no indication that the district court did not understand its authority to vary from the Guidelines range based on Kimbrough, we hold that there is not plain error affecting substantial rights. See Dallman, 533 F.3d at 761-62; cf. United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 958, 964 (9th Cir.2011) (remanding to the district court because the district court made comments suggesting that it believed that it did not have the discretion under Kimbrough to reject the child pornography Guidelines).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.