United States of America v. SHAWN VINCENT BEST, Sr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SHAWN VINCENT BEST, Sr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-30199
D.C. No. 2:22-cr-00001-RMP-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Shawn Vincent Best, Sr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
assault resulting in substantial bodily injury to a domestic partner in Indian
country, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(7), 1153(a). We have jurisdiction
* 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
SEP 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-30199
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Best contends that the district court failed to explain adequately its decision
to impose an above-Guidelines sentence. He further argues that the court
improperly relied on facts he did not admit and the government did not prove,
resulting in a substantively unreasonable sentence. In Best’s view, the uncontested
facts and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors supported a time-served sentence. We
review Best’s unpreserved procedural claims for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and his claim that the
sentence is substantively unreasonable for an abuse of discretion, see Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The district court did not procedurally err, nor did it abuse its discretion in
imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. The court provided a thorough
explanation for its sentencing decision, explaining that upward departures were
warranted for: (1) Best’s uncounted tribal convictions for conduct similar to the
offense conduct, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, and (2) the extreme psychological injury
Best caused his victim, see U.S.S.G. § 5K2.3. The court further explained that the
§ 3553(a) factors independently supported the upward variance given the harm
Best caused to the victim, his criminal history, his lack of remorse at sentencing,
and the need to protect the public. This explanation was more than sufficient. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-30199
court permissibly relied on the presentence report and the victim’s sentencing
statement. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1102, 1104-05 (9th
Cir. 2013). Finally, the 46-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of
the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --