USA V. PAUL STEVENSON, No. 15-30145 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 15-30145 D.C. No. 1:14-cr-00124-SPW v. MEMORANDUM* PAUL MICHAEL STEVENSON, a.k.a. Paul Michael Threefingers, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Paul Michael Stevenson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for * 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). failure to register as a sexual offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Stevenson contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court overemphasized the risk he poses to the public. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Stevenson’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The high-end sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Stevenson’s failure to complete a sex offender treatment program and his two previous convictions for failure to register. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Contrary to Stevenson’s argument, the record reflects that the district court made its own determination that Stevenson presents a danger to the community, rather than relying on a prior judge’s assessment of the threat he poses. AFFIRMED. 2 15-30145
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.
