United States of America v. Timothy James Butler

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
TIMOTHY JAMES BUTLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30362
D.C. No. 1:03-cr-00131-BLW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 6, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Timothy James Butler appeals from the 160-month sentence imposed upon
resentencing following a successful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Butler contends that the district court procedurally erred by limiting its
FILED
DEC 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-30362 2
consideration of his post-sentence rehabilitation in order to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities. The record reflects that the district court fully considered
Butler’s post-sentence rehabilitation, in conjunction with the remaining 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, when it granted a 21-month downward variance from
the advisory Guidelines range. See United States v. Green, 152 F.3d 1202, 1207-
08 (9th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). The district court did not procedurally err, and the
sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the
circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --