United States of America v. James R. Damaso

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES R. DAMASO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10493
D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00033-FMTG-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Guam
Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
James R. Damaso, a federal prisoner, appeals his 57-month prison sentence
for Possession of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841
and a consecutive 24 months for violation of supervised release imposed for a prior
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
conviction. Damaso argues that the district court failed to state its reasons for
imposing the maximum sentence advised by the United States Sentencing
Guidelines (“Guidelines”). See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) & (c). He also argues that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §
1291. We review de novo whether the district court stated adequately its reasons
for imposing the sentence, United State v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th
Cir. 2009), and review the sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion
standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597, 169 L. Ed.
2d 445 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
We affirm.
Damaso complains that the district court did not sufficiently provide reasons
for selecting the maximum sentence advised by the Guidelines. We disagree. The
district court complied with its obligations under the Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) & (c); Carty, 520 F.3d at 992 (“The district court need not tick off each of
the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.”); United State v. Diaz-
Argueta, 564 F.3d 1047, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2009) (“§ 3553(a) ‘does not necessitate
a specific articulation of each factor separately, but rather a showing that the
district court considered the statutorily-designated factors in imposing a

-- 2 of 3 --

3
sentence.’”); see also United States v. Delgado, 357 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.
2004).
With respect to substantive reasonableness, in light of all the circumstances
surrounding the offense and Damaso’s criminal history, we hold that the district
court did not abuse its discretion. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
Damaso’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --