United States v. Clifton Peter

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 11, 2023
• Docket: 22-30150
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 11 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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