United States of America v. William Harvey Stroud, a.k.a. William Stroud

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM HARVEY STROUD, a.k.a.
William Stroud,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-50182
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02161-BEN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
William Harvey Stroud appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
FILED
APR 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Stroud contends that the district court erred by refusing to consider a
relevant sentencing factor, namely his mental infirmities, when it denied the
parties’ requests for a departure or variance. We review for plain error, see United
States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none.
Contrary to Stroud’s contention, the record shows that the district court considered
his mental infirmities, granted a minor-role reduction to account for his limitations,
and then simply concluded that the circumstances did not warrant a departure
under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 or a variance. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
358 (2007). Moreover, the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
the nature of the offense and Stroud’s intellectual limitations. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Blixt, 548 F.3d 882, 890-91 (9th
Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
15-50182 2

-- 2 of 2 --