# United States v. Daniel Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 21, 2016 · 671 F. App'x 681

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4109889

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Alan BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 21, 2016
- **Citations:** 671 F. App'x 681
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wallace, Leavy, Fisher
- **Nature of suit:** Criminal
- **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/4109889

## Opinion text

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30324

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00117-SLG

v. MEMORANDUM*

DANIEL ALAN BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016**

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Alan Brown appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 180-month sentence and lifetime of supervised release imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of child pornography, in

*
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).
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Brown contends that the district court procedurally erred by considering

erroneous facts and by insufficiently explaining the sentence. The record reflects

that, even if the district court misstated the duration of Brown’s illegal activity, that

characterization did not affect Brown’s substantial rights. See United States v.

Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008). The court carefully explained the

sentence in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and Brown’s arguments.

Brown next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light

of mitigating factors such as his lack of prior criminal history, age, education, his

cooperation with law enforcement and the likelihood that he will re-offend. The

court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Brown’s sentence. See Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below- Guidelines sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the

totality of the circumstances, including Brown’s admission that his independent

attempts to curtail his interest in child pornography over a period of many years

were unsuccessful. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 15-30324

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4109889. Public record. Not legal advice.