Court Opinion

ID: 9965065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 17:01:33.394657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:42.839862
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 1 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       Nos. 23-345
                                                    23-347
             Plaintiff - Appellee,
                                                D.C. Nos. 2:22-cr-00377-AB-1
 v.                                                       2:20-cr-00554-AB-1
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ALEX SCOTT ROBERTS,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    André Birotte Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024 **

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Alex Scott Roberts appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 85-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for stalking, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261A(A)-(B) and 2261(b)(5), and cyberstalking, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

      *
             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).
§ 1291, and we affirm.

       Roberts contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it

affords too much weight to the nature and circumstances of his offense and too

little weight to his mental health conditions and need for treatment on supervised

release. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively

reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of

the circumstances, including the egregious manner in which Roberts threatened

and harassed the victims, his criminal history involving similar conduct, and the

need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Gutierrez-

Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various

factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

       AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                   23-345