Court Opinion

ID: 9408172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 19:00:48.165117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.364380
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUL 11 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-30150

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:20-cr-02024-SAB-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CLIFTON FRANK PETER,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of Washington
                   Stanley A. Bastian, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Clifton Frank Peter appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 600-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction

for three counts of second-degree murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and

1153. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Peter contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively

unreasonable because it is a de facto life sentence, which is a sentence imposed for

murders committed with premeditation. He argues that, although tragic, his

offense “remains within the heartland” of the second-degree murder guideline, and

his mental state of extreme intoxication distinguishes his conduct from that of

premediated, first-degree murder. The district court did not abuse its discretion.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Under the facts of this case, the

district court reasonably concluded that the applicable Guidelines range did not

adequately account for the fact that Peter committed three murders. See United

States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2013) (sentencing court

may conclude that the applicable Guideline range does not sufficiently account for

the nature and circumstances of the defendant’s particular offense). The above-

Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of the

circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the serious nature of

the offense, Peter’s history and characteristics, and the need to protect the public.

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    22-30150