United States of America v. Noah Childs Gordon

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NOAH CHILDS GORDON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30328
D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00057-SEH-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 9, 2010
Portland, Oregon
Before: HALL, THOMPSON, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Noah Childs Gordon appeals his within-Guidelines sentence imposed by the
district court following his guilty plea to conspiracy to import a controlled
substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963. Gordon argues that the district court
committed procedural error by failing to adequately explain why it rejected his
FILED
JUN 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

MDMA is the shortened name for Methylenedioxymethamphetamine,1
commonly known as ecstasy or the “hug drug.”
2
request for downward departure under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85
(2007), and whether it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Gordon also
argues that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence,
because the potency of the pills involved in the conspiracy was less than the typical
tablet considered in the Guidelines and because the equivalency between MDMA1
and marijuana in the Guidelines is itself, and as applied to Gordon, unreasonable.
“Whether the district court provided an adequate statement of reasons for the
sentence it imposed is a question of law that we review de novo.” United States v.
Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Our review of the
record and the district court’s statements during sentencing indicate that in
imposing Gordon’s sentence, the district court considered all of the arguments,
testimony, materials submitted, and the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The
reasons stated by the district court were sufficient, and no specific cases needed to
be cited, as we presume that district judges know the law. United States v. Carty,
520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Gordon’s sentence was also substantively reasonable. Our review of the
record does not leave us with “a definite and firm conviction that the district court

-- 2 of 3 --

3
committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing the
relevant factors.” United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th
Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --