United States v. Raymond Appelwick

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Raymond Appelwick

666 F. App'x 680

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 2016

Docket15-50421

StatusUnpublished

This text of 666 F. App'x 680 (United States v. Raymond Appelwick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Raymond Appelwick, 666 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Raymond Douglas Appelwick appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy to import methamphetamine and importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963'. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*681 Appelwick contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court overstated the seriousness of his offense, failed to consider mitigating evidence, and imposed' a sentence greater than necessary. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Appel-wick’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court varied downward 72 months in recognition of Ap-pelwick’s mitigating circumstances. The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the amount of methamphetamine Appelwick attempted to transport into the United States, his prior arrest for delivering methamphetamine to a “stash house,” and his procurement of motorcycle batteries used to bring drugs into the country. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51,128 S.Ct. 586.

We decline to reach Appelwick’s claim, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that he is entitled to a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 n.9 (9th Cir. 2007). Contrary to Appel-wick’s contention, neither the amendment to the minor role Guideline, which became effective before the opening brief was filed, nor this court’s holding that the amendment is retroactive, constitutes good cause for Appelwick’s failure to raise the claim earlier.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Raymond Douglas Appelwick appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 96-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy to import methamphetamine and importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963'. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*681 Appelwick contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court overstated the seriousness of his offense, failed to consider mitigating evidence, and imposed' a sentence greater than necessary. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Appel-wick’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court varied downward 72 months in recognition of Ap-pelwick’s mitigating circumstances. The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the amount of methamphetamine Appelwick attempted to transport into the United States, his prior arrest for delivering methamphetamine to a “stash house,” and his procurement of motorcycle batteries used to bring drugs into the country. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51,128 S.Ct. 586.

We decline to reach Appelwick’s claim, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that he is entitled to a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 n.9 (9th Cir. 2007). Contrary to Appel-wick’s contention, neither the amendment to the minor role Guideline, which became effective before the opening brief was filed, nor this court’s holding that the amendment is retroactive, constitutes good cause for Appelwick’s failure to raise the claim earlier.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

666 F. App'x 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-raymond-appelwick-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack