FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50182
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02161-BEN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM HARVEY STROUD, a.k.a.
William Stroud,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
William Harvey Stroud appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 48-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
*
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).
importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Stroud contends that the district court erred by refusing to consider a
relevant sentencing factor, namely his mental infirmities, when it denied the
parties’ requests for a departure or variance. We review for plain error, see United
States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none.
Contrary to Stroud’s contention, the record shows that the district court considered
his mental infirmities, granted a minor-role reduction to account for his limitations,
and then simply concluded that the circumstances did not warrant a departure
under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 or a variance. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
358 (2007). Moreover, the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
the nature of the offense and Stroud’s intellectual limitations. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Blixt, 548 F.3d 882, 890-91 (9th
Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-50182