United States of America v. Dana Ray Reynolds

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
DANA RAY REYNOLDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50546
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01067-AHM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Dana Ray Reynolds appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed following
his guilty-plea conviction for subscribing to a false tax return, in violation of 26
U.S.C. § 7206(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-50546 2
Reynolds contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and instead imposed
a sentence based on the court’s displeasure with how the United States Attorney’s
office handled tax cases, assumed the nature of the offense was more serious, and
punished him for conduct other than what he pled guilty to.
The record reflects that the district court considered the relevant sentencing
factors, in conjunction with Reynold’s mitigating arguments, but found the
circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence below the one imposed. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Reynold’s sentence was based on the
admissions made pursuant to his plea agreement, the seriousness of the offense, the
need to protect the public, and the need to provide adequate deterrence.
The two-month above-Guideline sentence is substantively reasonable in
light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --