United States v. Daniel Morgan

696 F. App'x 309

Opinions

MEMORANDUM

Footnotes

•

**

Jason Morgan challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed following entry of his guilty plea. The district court provided adequate reasons to support its conclusion that the sentence was “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to protect the public and promote respect for the law. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Giving , “due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance,” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), Morgan’s sentence was not substantively unreasonable. “The fact that [we] might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Id.

Morgan also challenges Supervised Release Special Condition No. 7. After the imposition of Morgan’s sentence, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Packingham v. North Carolina, — U.S. -, 137 act 1730, 198 L.Ed.2d 273 (2017). As agreed by the parties, we vacate that special condition of supervised release and remand to the district' court for further' consideration in light of Packingham.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.