United States of America v. Melanie Dene Mitchem

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MELANIE DENE MITCHEM,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-50105
D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00504-PA-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Melanie Dene Mitchem appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the four-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction
for willful failure to file tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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
NOV 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-50105
Mitchem contends that the district court erred by considering facts outside of
the record, misapprehending the circumstances of the offense, and disregarding the
mitigating evidence. 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 did not consider evidence outside of the
record, but rather made reasonable inferences from the evidence before it. See
United States v. Orozco-Acosta, 607 F.3d 1156, 1166 (9th Cir. 2010).
Furthermore, the district court properly considered the need for general deterrence.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). Finally, the record reflects that the district court
understood the evidence and considered Mitchem’s mitigating arguments. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Mitchem also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of the circumstances of the offense and her role as the sole provider for her
son. Specifically, she challenges the district court’s failure to grant a downward
departure under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6. We review the district court’s denial of
discretionary departures only as part of our review of the overall substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. See United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d
1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court did not abuse its discretion by
imposing the below-Guidelines sentence, which is substantively reasonable in light
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-50105
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --