United States of America v. DONALD McCOY, Jr.

18-30068Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 18, 2019

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DONALD McCOY, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-30068
D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00284-JLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Donald McCoy, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-year sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
production, distribution, and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and 2252. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
* 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).
FILED
JAN 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-30068
affirm.
McCoy first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider each of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and address his
mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-
Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none.
The record reflects that the district court explicitly acknowledged and considered
each of the sentencing factors, as well as McCoy’s mitigating arguments, but was
not persuaded that they warranted a lower sentence.
McCoy also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The 24-year sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section
3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the
seriousness of the offense, the impact on the victims, the need to provide
deterrence to others, and the need to protect the public. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.