United States of America v. Frank W. Coon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FRANK W. COON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10517
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00038-GEB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Frank W. Coon appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
210-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for receipt of child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. 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
MAR 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-10517
Coon contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the
alleged disparity between his sentence and the sentences received by similarly
situated defendants. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Coon’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The low-end
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover,
the district court necessarily considered the issue of unwarranted disparities by
properly calculating and reviewing the Guidelines range. See id. at 54 (“Since the
District Judge correctly calculated and carefully reviewed the Guidelines range, he
necessarily gave significant weight and consideration to the need to avoid
unwarranted disparities.”).
Coon’s contention that the manner in which the child pornography
guidelines were amended violates the separation of powers doctrine is foreclosed.
See United States v. Kiefer, 760 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2014) (rejecting
argument that U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 violates the separation of powers doctrine).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --