United States of America v. ROBERT ERNEST PEEPLES, Jr.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
ROBERT ERNEST PEEPLES, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-30259
D.C. No. 9:10-cr-00029-DWM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Robert Ernest Peeples, Jr., appeals from the 84-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for receipt of child pornography, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
FILED
JUL 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-30259 2
affirm.
Peeples contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain adequately the sentence, including how it weighed the psychosexual
evaluation. The record reflects that the district court adequately explained the
sentence and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty, 520
F.3d 984, 992–93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Peeples also contends that the district court failed to appreciate adequately
its discretion to vary from the child pornography Guidelines and erred by not
categorically rejecting the child pornography Guidelines in this case. The record
reflects that the court appreciated its discretion to vary from the child pornography
Guidelines. It did not err in failing to reject them categorically. See United States
v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2011).
Peeples also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In
light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors, the district court’s below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.
See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
Peeples’s motion for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --