United States of America v. Harley Combres

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
HARLEY COMBRES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30050
D.C. No. 1:11-cr-00046-RFC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Richard F. Cebull, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Harley Combres appeals from the 87-month sentence imposed following his
guilty-plea conviction for attempted illegal export and concealing items for illegal
export, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 554. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30050 2
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Combres first contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32 by failing to resolve whether a statement made by Combres
after his arrest was truthful. However, the district court expressly found that the
statement was truthful. Accordingly, the court did not violate Rule 32. See United
States v. Karterman, 60 F.3d 576, 583 (9th Cir. 1995).
Combres next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court concluded that Combres’s criminal history category failed to
adequately reflect the seriousness of his past criminal conduct and likelihood to
reoffend. This conclusion is supported by the record. In light of the totality of the
circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, Combres’s sentence
is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421-22 (9th
Cir. 2011) (reviewing criminal history departure as part of a sentence’s substantive
reasonableness); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --