United States v. Ruddle

372 F. App'x 765
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 29, 2010·No. No. 09-30189·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Timothy Bruce Ruddle appeals from his 210-month sentence imposed following a guilty-plea conviction for receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ruddle contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing adequately to explain the sentence imposed and that the sentence, at the high-end of the Sentencing Guidelines, is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516-17 (9th Cir.2008). Further, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentence is not unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

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

United States v. Ruddle, 372 F. App'x 765 (9th Cir. 2010).

372 F. App'x 765 (United States v. Ruddle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Perez-Perez
512 F.3d 514 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)