From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Hollister

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 11, 2008
292 F. App'x 670 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 06-30536.

Submitted September 8, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed September 11, 2008.

Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Bruce F. Miyake, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Paula S. Deutsch, Esq., Corey Endo, Esq., Federal Public Defender's Office Western District of Washington, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-05-00055-001-RSM.

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Shannon Hollister appeals from the 108-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for interstate murder for hire, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1958. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hollister contends that the district court's analysis of the sentencing factors set forth by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) was inadequate and that the district court failed to resolve factual issues, including the nature of her mental disorder, before imposing her sentence. We conclude that the district court did not procedurally err. See Gall v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597-99, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994-95 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Hollister

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 11, 2008
292 F. App'x 670 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

U.S. v. Hollister

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shannon HOLLISTER…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 11, 2008

Citations

292 F. App'x 670 (9th Cir. 2008)