United States v. Clement King

588 F. App'x 630
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 16, 2014
Docket13-30057
StatusUnpublished

This text of 588 F. App'x 630 (United States v. Clement King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Clement King, 588 F. App'x 630 (9th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Following his conviction for sexual abuse of a minor and attempted receipt of child pornography, Clement King was sentenced to 365 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, a panel of this court vacated his sentence after determining that the district court committed procedural error in calculating King’s Sentencing Guidelines range. United States v. King, 468 Fed.Appx. 734 (9th Cir.2012). On remand, the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range as 151 to 188 months, but imposed the same sentence of 365 months’ imprisonment. In this appeal, King asserts that his sentence was substantively unreasonable.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for “abuse of discretion.” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). We may only vacate the sentence if we have “a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon *631 weighing the relevant factors.” United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir.2009). In light of this deferential standard of review, we AFFIRM.

*

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Clement King
468 F. App'x 734 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Carty
520 F.3d 984 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez
567 F.3d 1050 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
588 F. App'x 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-clement-king-ca9-2014.