Opinion
No. 14-30016
06-25-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT BRUCE HIPPLE, III, a.k.a. Robbie, Defendant - Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00179-RAJ MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Robert Bruce Hipple, III, appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hipple contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on clearly erroneous facts regarding prescription drugs. We review for plain error, see United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir. 2013), and find none. Hipple has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence absent the alleged error. See id. at 1105-06.
Hipple next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it creates an unwarranted sentencing disparity with his codefendant. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Hippie's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 553 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense and Hipple's criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th Cir. 2009) (sentencing disparities among differently situated defendants are not unwarranted).
AFFIRMED.