United States of America v. Ron Oneida Whiteman

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).
EOH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RON ONEIDA WHITEMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30123
D.C. No. 1:08-CR-00036-RFC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Richard F. Cebull, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Ron Oneida Whiteman appeals from the 293-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of
FILED
MAR 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EOH/Research 09-30123 2
18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2241(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Whiteman contends that the district court erred by denying a sentencing
reduction for acceptance of responsibility on the ground that, while awaiting
sentencing, he committed a new, unrelated crime. This contention fails under
United States v. Mara, 523 F.3d 1036, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2008). Whiteman further
contends that the resulting sentence is unreasonable. The record reflects that the
district court did not procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,
993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Additionally, in light of the totality of the
circumstances, including the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district
court’s sentence is substantively reasonable. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --