Opinion
No. 19-10255
07-20-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK CORUM, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00240-KJM-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Mark Corum appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 360-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), and four counts of production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Corum contends that the district court procedurally erred by applying a two-level enhancement for his role as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of the production offenses. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). We need not resolve this issue because, even if the district court erred, the error was harmless. See United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 (9th Cir. 2011) (alleged Guidelines calculation errors are reviewed for harmlessness). The record reflects that, even without the challenged enhancement, the Guidelines range was life, adjusted to 1,680 months under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2. See United States v. McCarns, 900 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2018) (declining to reach challenge to three-level enhancement because it did not affect the Guidelines range). Moreover, the enhancement appears to have had no effect on the district court's decision to impose a sentence 110 years below the Guidelines range.
AFFIRMED.