Court Opinion

ID: 8628341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 15:15:32.353599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:41.194352
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM ***
Danelle Kay Ferguson appeals her sentence for second degree murder of her *613child. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1158(a). She asserts that the district court committed a procedural error in failing to consider her “history and characteristics” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that the sentence was not reasonable. We affirm.
As it was required to do, the district court first calculated the advisory Guideline range.1 It then considered that range2 plus the other factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Ferguson’s “history and characteristics,” before imposing a sentence higher than the range. We have reviewed the record, including the sentencing transcript, and we hold that the district court did not: (1) commit a procedural error or (2) abuse its discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See Gall, — U.S. at -, 128 S.Ct. at 597; Kimbrough v. United States, — U.S. -, -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 575-76, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007); Rita v. United States, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2466-67, 2469-70, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Nichols, 464 F.3d 1117, 1124-25 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.

 xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

. See Gall v. United States, - U.S. -, -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 259-60, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764-65, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 985 (9th Cir.2006).

. See USSG §§ 2A1.2, 3A1.1(b)(1), 3E1.1 (Nov. 1, 2006).