United States v. Plouffe

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 17, 2006
• Docket: 05-30045
• Status: Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 05-30045 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v.  CR-04-00013-3- CHRISTOPHER RAY PLOUFFE, SEH Defendant-Appellant.  OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 9, 2005* Seattle, Washington

Filed January 18, 2006

Before: Ronald M. Gould, Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges, and William W Schwarzer,** District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Gould

*This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). **The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

767 UNITED STATES v. PLOUFFE 769

COUNSEL

Jeremy S. Yellin, Havre, Montana, for defendant-appellant Christopher Ray Plouffe.

Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant United States Attorney, Great Falls, Montana, for plaintiff-appellee United States of Amer- ica.

OPINION

GOULD, Circuit Judge:

Christopher Ray Plouffe appeals his 71-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction on one count of assault resulting in serious bodily harm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113 (a)(6) and 1153. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

[1] We review sentences imposed after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker for “unreason- ableness.” 125 S. Ct. 738, 765-66 (2005). In determining whether a sentence is unreasonable, we are guided by the sen- tencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the 770 UNITED STATES v. PLOUFFE sentencing range established by the Sentencing Guidelines.1 Id.

[2] The district court considered Plouffe’s history and char- acteristics, which were described in the presentence report; Plouffe’s role in the offense; the need to protect the public while providing appropriate punishment for the offense; and the now-advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 57-71 months. The court then imposed a sentence that was within the guideline range, albeit at the top of the range. The district court’s approach was reasoned and it addressed factors speci- fied in § 3553(a). We conclude that Plouffe’s 71-month sen- tence is reasonable, and we will not disturb the discretion of the sentencing court.

[3] That Plouffe’s sentence is nearly twice as long as the 37-month sentence imposed on his co-defendant, Mad Plume, is not grounds for finding that Plouffe’s sentence is unreason- able, as urged by Plouffe. Rather, this result is consistent with the directive of Booker that sentencing courts are to consider how the sentencing factors apply to each defendant and deter- mine whether an individualized sentence is warranted. Id. at 767 (noting that, without its mandatory provision, the Sen- tencing Reform Act remains consistent with Congress’s intent to “provide certainty and fairness in meeting the purposes of sentencing, [while] avoiding unwarranted sentencing dispari- ties . . . [and] maintaining sufficient flexibility to permit indi- vidualized sentences when warranted.”) (emphasis added) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1 These factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentences and the sentencing range established by the Sentencing Guide- lines; (5) pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commis- sion; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants who have similar criminal records and have been found guilty of similar conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). UNITED STATES v. PLOUFFE 771 Because Plouffe’s criminal history was different from that of his co-defendant, the district court had a reasonable basis under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines for the difference in the sentence each received, and this difference does not require relief for Plouffe.

AFFIRMED.