USA v. Lee Mooring, No. 10-50534 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 11 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-50534 D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00891-DDP v. MEMORANDUM * LEE EDWARD MOORING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 5, 2011 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Lee Edward Mooring appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Mooring contends the district court procedurally erred by improperly considering his criminal history. Contrary to Mooring s contention, the district court did not plainly err. See U.S. v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1059, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, in light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1181-82 (explaining the factors to consider under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)). AFFIRMED. 2 10-50534

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.