United States of America v. David Lee Spotted Eagle

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
DAVID LEE SPOTTED EAGLE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30094
D.C. No. 4:11-cr-00087-SEH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
David Lee Spotted Eagle appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 113(a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30094 2
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Spotted Eagle contends that the district court erred by applying a two-level
vulnerable victim enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1). Specifically,
he contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that
the victim was asleep. The court’s finding is supported by the record and is not
clearly erroneous. See United States v. Holt, 510 F.3d 1007, 1010 (9th Cir. 2007).
To the extent Spotted Eagle contends that the district court procedurally
erred by failing to explain why the enhancement was warranted, this contention
fails. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --