United States v. Braddock

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 22, 2025
• Docket: 24-4675
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-4675 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:19-cr-00269-JCM-EJY-1 v. MEMORANDUM* LESEAN ROGER DENNIS BRADDOCK, Jr.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Lesean Roger Dennis Braddock, Jr. appeals from the district court’s

judgment and challenges the 186-month sentence imposed on remand for

resentencing. 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). Braddock contends that his sentence—consisting of mandatory 168 months

for two 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) counts and 18 months on the remaining counts—is

substantively unreasonable. He argues that the district court did not adequately

consider or address his rehabilitation and other mitigating circumstances, or

explain its reasons for the sentence.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the below-

Guidelines sentence on the non-firearm counts. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007). Although the court did not discuss each of Braddock’s mitigating

arguments, the record shows that the court was aware of and considered them.

And, when announcing the sentence, the court balanced the seriousness of the

offenses with Braddock’s evident rehabilitation, considering him “a different

defendant” than it had previously sentenced. This explanation was sufficient, see

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and the

sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and

the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of Braddock’s offenses. See

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also 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 24-4675