United States of America v. Wyatt Anthony Bird

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
WYATT ANTHONY BIRD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-30115
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-05630-RSM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Wyatt Bird appeals from the 96-month sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in 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.
FILED
FEB 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-30115 2
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Bird first contends that the district court committed procedural error by
failing to consider his mitigation arguments and failing adequately to explain the
reasons for the sentence selected. These contentions fail because the district
court’s explanation was sufficient to communicate that it “considered the parties’
arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking
authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
Bird also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light
of the totality of the circumstances, including Bird’s significant criminal history, as
well as the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the above-Guidelines sentence
is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --