United States of America v. Joshua Robert Starnes

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA ROBERT STARNES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-30042
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-05294-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Joshua Robert Starnes appeals from the 180-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for transportation of child pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 04 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-30042 2
Starnes contends that the district court committed procedural error by
relying on a clearly erroneous factual finding in selecting his sentence, and by
failing adequately to consider and explain the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. There was no procedural error because the district court’s factual findings
were supported by the record, see United States v. Spangle, 626 F.3d 488, 497 (9th
Cir. 2010), and because the district court’s consideration and explanation of the
relevant sentencing factors was sufficient to “communicate[] that the parties’
arguments have been heard, and that a reasoned decision has been made,” United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Starnes also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In
light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors, Starnes’s below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). His contention that the sentence is
unreasonable because the district court used the Guidelines range as an initial
benchmark in selecting his sentence fails. See United States v. Henderson, 649
F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[S]entencing courts must continue to consider the
applicable Guidelines range as the starting point and the initial benchmark” in child
pornography cases) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --