USA V. SCOTT HEDDINGS, No. 14-30002 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 17 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-30002 D.C. No. 4:06-cr-00076-DWM-1 v. MEMORANDUM* SCOTT HEDDINGS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 4, 2015** Portland, Oregon Before: FISHER, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Scott Heddings appeals the district court’s sentence of 240 months in prison following his guilty plea for receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. * 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). § 2252A(a)(2) and destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court stated that Heddings’s Montana conviction for felony incest was the basis for increasing his offense level for the federal offense under § 2G2.2(b)(5) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Because Heddings’s Missouri convictions for sexual abuse and felony statutory sodomy were not the basis for an increase in the offense level for the federal offense, the district court did not err in declining to apply § 5G1.3(b) (2013) of the Guidelines to impose the sentence on the federal offense to run concurrently with the Missouri sentences. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in ordering the sentence on the federal offense to run consecutively to the Missouri sentences under § 5G1.3(c) of the Guidelines. See United States v. Shouse, 755 F.3d 1104, 1108–09 (9th Cir. 2014). As Heddings does not appeal his conviction or allege that his plea was involuntary, United States v. Neely, 38 F.3d 458 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), is not applicable to a review of Heddings’s sentence on appeal. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
