United States v. Ferguson

270 F. App'x 612

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

***

Danelle Kay Ferguson appeals her sentence for second degree murder of her child. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1158(a). She asserts that the district court committed a procedural error in failing to consider her “history and characteristics” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and that the sentence was not reasonable. We affirm.

As it was required to do, the district court first calculated the advisory Guideline range.¹ It then considered that range² plus the other factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Ferguson’s “history and characteristics,” before imposing a sentence higher than the range. We have reviewed the record, including the sentencing transcript, and we hold that the district court did not: (1) commit a procedural error or (2) abuse its discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See Gall, — U.S. at -, 128 S.Ct. at 597; Kimbrough v. United States, — U.S. -, -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 575-76, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007); Rita v. United States, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2466-67, 2469-70, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Nichols, 464 F.3d 1117, 1124-25 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

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

1 . See Gall v. United States, - U.S. -, -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 259-60, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764-65, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 985 (9th Cir.2006).

2 . See USSG §§ 2A1.2, 3A1.1(b)(1), 3E1.1 (Nov. 1, 2006).