United States of America v. Garrett Phillip Harr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARRETT PHILLIP HARR,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-30117
D.C. No. 9:12-cr-00041-DLC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2013 **
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Garrett Phillip Harr appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 37-month sentence imposed following his conviction for conspiracy
to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 17 2014
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 --

Harr contends that the 37-month sentence, which is at the bottom of the
applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, is substantively unreasonable because the
drug trafficking Guidelines themselves are too high and because the district court
improperly weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The district court was not
required to reject the drug trafficking Guidelines. See United States v. Mitchell,
624 F.3d 1023, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that sentencing judges have the
discretion to reject any Sentencing Guideline, but no judge is required to do so). In
addition, the “weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the
discretion of the district court.” United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904,
908 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion. The
sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the totality of the
circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including not only
Harr’s personal history and characteristics, but also the duration and seriousness of
his conduct in committing the offense. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --