United States of America v. Nathan Eli Thomas

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
NATHAN ELI THOMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10614
D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00160-GMN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Nathan Eli Thomas appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Thomas argues that the district court took “insufficient notice of substantial
mitigating factors such as [his] skill as a musician, his reputation in the community
FILED
OCT 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10614 2
as a kind, non-violent person, and the role of substance abuse in the commission of
the offense.” He further contends that the court failed to “address the fact that [he]
will not receive the full benefits of [the Bureau of Prisons’] residential drug
treatment program.” We review for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none.
The record reflects that the court considered and addressed Thomas’s mitigating
arguments and concluded that they did not warrant a lower sentence.
In a related vein, Thomas argues that the district court “unduly discounted
[his] history and characteristics, his talents as a person and musician, and his strong
prospects for rehabilitation” in selecting a sentence. “The weight to be given the
various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court,” United
States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009), and the court did
not abuse its discretion here. The 48-month sentence is substantively reasonable in
light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --