Unpublished Disposition, 925 F.2d 1471 (9th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Mildred Helene BURWELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 88-3154.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 1991.* Decided Feb. 22, 1991.
Before O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Mildred Helene Burwell appeals her sentence imposed pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines"), following her guilty plea to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Burwell contends that the district court erred by failing to state its reasons for imposing the midrange sentence of 57 months, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the sentence.
This court reviews de novo the district court's application of the Guidelines. United States v. Howard, 894 F.2d 1085, 1087 (9th Cir. 1990).
18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) (1) instructs the sentencing court to "state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence, and, if the sentence ... range exceeds 24 months, the reason for imposing a sentence at a particular point within the range." The district court must make a general statement of reasons for choosing the relevant guideline range. See United States v. Lockard, 910 F.2d 542, 546 (9th Cir. 1990). Nevertheless, the district court is not required to state its reasons for selecting a particular sentence within the applicable range when the range does not exceed 24 months. See id., 910 F.2d at 545; Howard, 894 F.2d at 1092.
Here, according to the presentence report, the applicable guideline range was 51 to 63 months. Burwell entered a plea agreement whereby the government agreed to recommend to the district court a sentence at the low end of the sentencing range. At sentencing, the district court adopted the presentence report and rejected the government's recommendation. The district court stated, "I find and hold that a sentence at the midpoint of the guidelines should be imposed, and therefore, I impose a sentence ... for a period of 57 months." (RT 6/13/88 at 18).
The district court met the requirement of a general statement of reasons by accepting the presentence report and discussing its relevant portions. See Lockard, 910 F.2d at 546. A more detailed explanation was not required because the applicable guideline range for Burwell's sentence did not exceed 24 months. See Howard, 894 F.2d at 1092.1
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
The government's constitutional argument has been precluded by United States v. Mistretta, 488 U.S. 361 (1989). Therefore, we do not address it
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
