United States of America v. Thomas William Crimmins

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
THOMAS WILLIAM CRIMMINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30260
D.C. No. 1:11-cr-30035-PA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Thomas William Crimmins appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 480-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for four counts of mailing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252A(a)(1); four counts of distributing child pornography, in violation of 18
FILED
JUN 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30260 2
U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1); and two counts of possession of child pornography,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5) and 2256(8). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Crimmins contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We
review for abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The 480-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the
nature and circumstances of the offense. See id.
To the extent that Crimmins contends that the district court procedurally
erred at sentencing, the record supports the district court’s conclusion regarding
Crimmins’s dangerousness and the court adequately explained the sentence.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --