FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-30238
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00084-JDS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CHARLES LAWSOM TUCKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Jack D. Shanstrom, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Charles Lawsom Tucker appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for two counts of distribution and receipt of
child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Tucker contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
adequately to explain why it rejected his arguments in support of a shorter
sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608
F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and we find none. The record reflects that the
district court listened to Tucker’s arguments and understood its discretion to vary
from the child pornography Guidelines on policy grounds, but found the
circumstances insufficient to warrant more than a two-level downward variance.
The court did not procedurally err. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59
(2007).
Tucker also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
it is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing. Tucker’s below-
Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the
circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-30238