Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard Wesley COTTERMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-19
Citations: 619 F. App'x 654
Docket Number: No. 14-10454
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard Wesley COTTERMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 654–655

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard Wesley COTTERMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10454.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
Filed Oct. 19, 2015.
Carmen F. Corbin, Assistant U.S., Carin C. Duryee, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Darla Jean Mondou, Esquire, Maraña, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, 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
Howard Wesley Cotterman appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 35-year sentence imposed following his bench-trial convictions for two counts of production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e), and 2256(2); transportation and shipping of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1), (b)(1), and 2256(2); possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), (b)(2), and ,2256(2); and importation of obscene material, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cotterman first argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and by failing to adequately explain its sentencing decision. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. A court is not required to discuss each individual sentencing factor, and we assume that the district court knew the law and understood its obligation to consider the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Moreover, the reasons for imposing the sentence are readily apparent from the record. See id.
Next, Cotterman asserts that his sentence is substantively, unreasonable. We review a claim that a sentence is substantively unreasonable for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In light of the troubling nature of the offense, as well as Cotterman's criminal history, the court did not abuse its discretion. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.