UNITED STATES v. EPLER (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-26No. No. 20-30190

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's 51-month sentence, finding it substantively reasonable and within the judge's discretion to impose given Epler's criminal history and the applicable sentencing factors.

Colter Joseph Epler pleaded guilty to being a prohibited person in possession of firearms and ammunition under federal law. He received a 51-month sentence and appealed, arguing that the district court improperly emphasized his criminal history while downplaying his positive personal qualities, making the sentence substantively unreasonable.

The appellate court rejected Epler's challenge. The court found that the district judge did not abuse its discretion in weighing the relevant sentencing factors. Because the sentence fell within the applicable Guidelines range and appropriately reflected Epler's extensive criminal background alongside other statutory considerations, the court determined the punishment was substantively reasonable.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a within-Guidelines sentence for felon in possession of firearms was substantively reasonable
Whether the district court abused discretion by weighing criminal history heavily against personal characteristics
Application of sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

Procedural posture

Epler appealed his guilty-plea conviction and imposed sentence to the appellate court challenging the reasonableness of his punishment.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Colter Joseph Epler appeals from the district courts judgment and challenges the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a prohibited person in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Epler contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court gave excessive weight to his criminal history and insufficient weight to his positive personal characteristics. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The with-in-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Eplers extensive criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.