# United States v. Randall Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · October 28, 2010 · 402 F. App'x 189

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/178335

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randall Allen BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 28, 2010
- **Citations:** 402 F. App'x 189
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** O'Scannlain, Tallman, Bea
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/178335

## Opinion text

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 28 2010

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. 09-30239

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00279-ALH

v.
MEMORANDUM *
RANDALL ALLEN BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 19, 2010 **

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Randall Allen Brown appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for two counts of bank robbery, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). 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 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).
Brown contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by

presuming that the Guidelines range was reasonable and by failing to explain why

it was rejecting his arguments for a lower sentence. Brown further contends that

the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the

district court made an individualized determination based on the facts, adequately

explained the sentence, and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States

v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Additionally, in

light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence at the bottom of the

Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993-94.

AFFIRMED.

2 09-30239

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/178335. Public record. Not legal advice.