The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-30324•United States of America v. Daniel Alan Brown
15-30324Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 21, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DANIEL ALAN BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30324
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00117-SLG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Alan Brown appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 180-month sentence and lifetime of supervised release imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of child pornography, in
FILED
DEC 21 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 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 --
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Brown contends that the district court procedurally erred by considering
erroneous facts and by insufficiently explaining the sentence. The record reflects
that, even if the district court misstated the duration of Brown’s illegal activity, that
characterization did not affect Brown’s substantial rights. See United States v.
Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008). The court carefully explained the
sentence in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and Brown’s arguments.
Brown next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
of mitigating factors such as his lack of prior criminal history, age, education, his
cooperation with law enforcement and the likelihood that he will re-offend. The
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Brown’s sentence. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below- Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the
totality of the circumstances, including Brown’s admission that his independent
attempts to curtail his interest in child pornography over a period of many years
were unsuccessful. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
15-30324 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.