U.S. v. PEPION, 236 Fed.Appx. 316 (9th Cir. 2007)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steward Ray PEPION,Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30500.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted June 5, 2007[fn*].
Filed June 7, 2007.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.][fn*] The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P.34(a)(2).Page 317
Joseph E. Thaggard, Esq., USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
R. Henry Branom, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana; Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-06-00028-SEH.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM[fn**]
Steward Ray Pepion appeals from his sentence of 120 months imposed following a guilty plea to assault on a federal employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a)(1) (b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pepion contends that the district court erred in applying a six-level upward adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2, based on its finding that Pepion knew or had reasonable cause to believe that his victim was a law enforcement officer. Given that the victim was assaulted while wearing a police uniform and responding to an emergency call necessitated by Pepion's violent behavior, and given that Pepion had met the victim in his official capacity a number of times before the instant offense, the district court did not clearly err in imposing the six-level adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2, Application Note 4; cf. United States v. Sanchez,914 F.2d 1355, 1363-64 (9th Cir. 1990).
Pepion next contends that the district court failed to consider some of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and thus, that his sentence is unreasonable. We disagree. We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
[fn**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.Page 318