United States of America v. David Steven Ross

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID STEVEN ROSS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-30085
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00007-RSL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
David Steven Ross appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(D); possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-30085
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); and unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ross contends that the district court procedurally erred by improperly
considering and commenting upon his race and the race of the individual who Ross
shot and killed during the course of the offense. This claim fails.
Notwithstanding the district court’s passing references to the races of the parties in
discussing the circumstances of the offense, the record reflects that race played no
role in the court’s sentencing decision. Rather, the court properly based the
sentence on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and thoroughly explained
its reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Ross next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it
created an unwarranted sentencing disparity with his co-defendant under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(6). Because Ross and his co-defendant are not similarly situated, this
argument is unpersuasive. See United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1011-12
(9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, the above-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-30085
circumstances, including the nature of the offense. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --