USA V. LARRY SEPT, JR., No. 16-30232 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-30232 D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00114-SPW v. MEMORANDUM* LARRY BURNELL SEPT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Larry Burnell Sept, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for transportation of a person with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Sept’s request for oral argument is denied. we affirm. Sept contends that the district court violated his due process rights by relying on unreliable hearsay evidence to find that his offense involved physical violence against the victims and by varying upward on that basis. The district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the victims’ hearsay statements regarding Sept’s violence against them. See United States v. Berry, 258 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir. 2001). Contrary to Sept’s contention, the victims’ statements, which were consistent with each other and with the statement of one victim’s mother and that of a third victim, were sufficiently corroborated to provide the minimum indicia of reliability necessary for consideration at sentencing. See id. at 976-77. AFFIRMED. 2 16-30232

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.