FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-50019
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-01928-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NICOLE KISSANE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Nicole Kissane appeals the 21-month sentence imposed following her guilty
plea to conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 43. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Kissane contends that the district court procedurally erred in imposing the
*
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).
sentence because it relied on clearly erroneous facts, and did not consider or
address her arguments regarding sentencing disparity. We review for plain error,
see United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 800 (9th Cir. 2012), and conclude that
there is none. Contrary to Kissane’s argument, the district court’s factual findings
were not clearly erroneous. The court did not treat her mitigating circumstances as
aggravating, but rather concluded that they did not justify the below-Guidelines
sentence that Kissane requested. Moreover, the court expressly considered
Kissane’s sentencing disparity arguments, as well as the other mitigating
circumstances she presented, and adequately explained the sentence. See United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The court was not
required to compare Kissane’s sentence to sentences imposed in unrelated cases.
See United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2010).
Kissane also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. We
review for abuse of discretion. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993. Given the deference
due to a district court’s sentencing determination and in light of the totality of the
circumstances, the within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See
Carty, 520 F.3d at 995.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-50019