United States v. Phillips

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 27, 2024
• Docket: 24-568
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-568 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:22-cr-02030-MKD-1 v. MEMORANDUM* AIDEN ZAHAY PHILLIPS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Mary K. Dimke, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 20, 2024**

Before: CANBY, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Aiden Zahay Phillips appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 33-month sentence imposed upon his guilty-plea conviction for

sexual abuse of a minor in Indian country in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153,

2243(a), 2246(2)(A). 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).

1 24-586 Phillips contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because his

compliance with pretrial release conditions and lack of criminal history, along with

other mitigating factors, demonstrate that a shorter sentence was warranted. The

district court considered these factors, however, and did not abuse its discretion in

denying Phillips’ request for a downward variance. See Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range is

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

of the circumstances, including Phillips’ lack of remorse, the nature of the offense,

and the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; 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 24-568