United States of America v. Christopher Armellio Barlese

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER ARMELLIO BARLESE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10084
D.C. No.
3:14-cr-00017-LRH-WGC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 17, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, WARDLAW, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Armellio Barlese appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to
assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3), 1151 and
1153. Apparently under the influence of mind-altering drugs, he assaulted an
elderly man in his home, and stabbed him twenty-nine times.
FILED
DEC 12 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

1. Barlese’s principal argument on appeal is that the district court
improperly considered his rehabilitation needs in imposing the sentence, in
violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011), and United States v.
Tapia, 665 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). We review for plain error.
The Supreme Court in Tapia recognized that a court is prohibited from
“imposing or lengthening a prison term to promote an offender’s rehabilitation.”
564 U.S. at 332; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) (providing that imprisonment is “not
an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation”). There was no
plain error in this case. In sentencing above the Guidelines range, the district court
expressly took into account the appropriate factors under § 3553(a)(2). Although it
recognized that the defendant has serious mental health issues, the court did not
suggest that the sentence itself was imposed out of concern for rehabilitation needs.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a
substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,
993 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court expressly noted that it “started at the
[G]uidelines” in calculating Barlese’s sentence and gave “great deference” to the
parties’ sentencing recommendation, but that the circumstances of the offense and
Barlese’s criminal history warranted its rejection of the plea agreement and upward
departure from the Guidelines range. Similarly, the district court explained that it
2

-- 2 of 3 --

was “fully aware of the defendant’s mental health issues, his drug history, his
family history” and incorporated into its analysis the likelihood that those factors
contributed to Barlese’s criminal record. Finally, the record does not indicate that
the district court was influenced in its sentencing determination by the
government’s victim impact evidence, because all such evidence was available
elsewhere in the record.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --