Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 12-1354
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
GEORGE F. RAYNER,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
Before
Howard, Selya and Thompson,
Circuit Judges.
Harold J. Hainke and Hainke & Tash on brief for appellant.
Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorney, and
Thomas E. Delahanty II, United States Attorney, on brief for
appellee.
January 18, 2013
Per Curiam. This is a single-issue sentencing appeal.
It follows a jury verdict finding defendant-appellant George F.
Rayner guilty of bankruptcy fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 152(1), and the
district court's imposition of an incarcerative sentence of one
year and one day.
The defendant's challenge to the sentence asserts that
the district court did not appropriately consider and weigh the
sentencing factors limned in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and, as a result,
fashioned a sentence that was greater than necessary to provide
just punishment. We have carefully reviewed the district court
record and the parties' briefs, and we find the defendant's
argument to be meritless.
We need not tarry. The guideline sentencing range in
this case is not contested; that range spans 21-27 months. The
district court effected a downward variance in favor of the
defendant and imposed a sentence of one year and one day — slightly
more than one-half of the low point of the guideline sentencing
range. In doing so, the court explicitly considered and weighed
the totality of the circumstances, including the factors prescribed
by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
As best we can tell, the defendant's real complaint is
not that the district court ignored the appropriate factors but,
rather, that it weighed those factors differently than the
defendant had hoped. Because the resulting sentence is neither
-2-
procedurally flawed nor substantively unreasonable, it commands our
approbation. See United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588, 592-93
(1st Cir. 2011); United States v. Dixon, 449 F.3d 194, 204-05 (1st
Cir. 2006).
We need go no further. The judgment of the district
court is summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
Affirmed.
-3-