NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30259
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00050-WFN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MICK CHI CAWSTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mick Chi Cawston appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 18-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for assault
resulting in substantial bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(7) and
1153. 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).
For the first time on appeal, Cawston argues that the district court
procedurally erred by failing to sufficiently explain the sentence. We review for
plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court
considered Cawston’s sentencing arguments and adequately explained its reasons
for selecting an 18-month term, including the need to protect the public and to
afford deterrence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc).
Cawston also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The district court varied downward from the correctly calculated
guideline range in order to account for the mitigating circumstances in Cawston’s
case. This decision reflects that, contrary to Cawston’s argument, the court did not
place undue weight on the guidelines range in selecting the sentence. Moreover,
the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
and the totality of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offense and
Cawston’s multiple pretrial release violations. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-30259