USA V. ROY PRETTYMAN, No. 16-50313 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-50313 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00709-JFW v. MEMORANDUM* ROY LAMONT PRETTYMAN, a.k.a. Roy Lamont Daily, a.k.a. Roy Daily Prettyman, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Roy Lamont Prettyman appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for counterfeiting obligations of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 471. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. * 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). Prettyman contends that the district court violated Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well as his constitutional rights to due process and to be present at sentencing, by sentencing him in absentia. The government argues that this appeal is barred by the appeal waiver contained in the parties’ plea agreement. We review de novo. See United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court did not clearly err when it found that Prettyman was voluntarily absent from the sentencing hearing and, therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced Prettyman in absentia. See United States v. Ornelas, 828 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2016). We, therefore, affirm with respect to the procedure used to impose the sentence. Because Prettyman’s sentence was not unlawful, we dismiss pursuant to the valid appeal waiver. See id. at 1023. Prettyman’s motion to take judicial notice of a document showing his arrest by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is denied because that arrest is irrelevant to the issues on appeal. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 16-50313
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.
