United States of America v. Demetri Dearth

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DEMETRI DEARTH,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-10276
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00287-GEB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Demetri Dearth appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 12-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for making
false statements and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1341. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-10276
Dearth contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of
the nature of the offense, her largely law-abiding life, her difficult childhood, her
performance on pretrial release, and her role as a caregiver to her mother and
spouse. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Dearth’s sentence is substantively reasonable in light of
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the
number of crimes Dearth committed, the risk Dearth created to public safety, and
the need to achieve deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The record does not
support Dearth’s contention that the district court failed to consider her caretaking
role. Moreover, the court adequately explained the sentence. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --