Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John FREITAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-21
Citations: 633 F. App'x 493
Docket Number: No. 15-10087
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John FREITAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 493–494

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John FREITAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10087.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed March 21, 2016.
Ronald G. Johnson, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
Pamela O’Leary Tower, Attorney at Law, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Freitas’s motion to waive oral argument and submit on the briefs is, therefore, granted. Freitas’s unopposed motion to expedite is denied as unnecessary,

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John Freitas appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Freitas contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) basing the sentence on his inability to stay sober while on pretrial release, (2) .failing to explain adequately why its policy disagreement with the child pornography guidelines did not support a greater downward variance, and (3) relying on the unfounded assumption that he lacks impulse control. These claims fail. The district court did not punish Freitas for his insobriety, but rather properly considered his multiple violations of his pretrial release conditions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The record belies Freitas's contention that the district court imposed the sentence in order to promote his rehabilitation, in violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011). In addition, the. district court thoroughly explained its decision to vary downwards and the extent of the variance. See United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir.2011). Finally, to the extent that the district court based the sentence on a determination that Freitas lacked impulse control, Freitas has not shown that this finding was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1103 (9th Cir.2013).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.