NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 31 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30161
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-05092-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MAXWELL APATA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Maxwell Apata appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for assault, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and 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).
Apata contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain
the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The
record reflects that the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing
the above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992
(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Apata next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court (1) varied upward based on factors that were already
incorporated into the Guidelines range, (2) failed to account for alleged sentencing
disparities, and (3) based the sentence on its personal feelings regarding domestic
violence. The sentence is not an abuse of discretion in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the
nature of the offense. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Moreover, the court did not err by varying upward based upon its determination that
the Guidelines range did not adequately account for the egregiousness of Apata’s
conduct. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-30161