Court Opinion

ID: 9957652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 19:01:12.768182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:33.841992
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         APR 4 2024
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 23-949
                                                 D.C. No. 1:22-cr-00103-SPW-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

MARKEL DEAN BROWN,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Montana
                     Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Markel Dean Brown appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction

for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, possession with intent to

distribute, and distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 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).
§§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

      Brown contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it

does not sufficiently account for his mitigating factors, including his age, mental

health issues, and difficult background. The record reflects that the district court

acknowledged Brown’s mitigating factors and imposed the below-Guidelines

sentence to account for them. The court did not abuse its discretion by declining to

impose an even lower sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007);

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.”). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Brown’s criminal

history and the seriousness of his offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                     23-949