USA V. CASEY CONLEY, No. 15-50347 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 03 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-50347 D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01464-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* CASEY CONLEY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2016** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Casey Conley appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 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 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). Conley contends that the district court erred by failing to consider the parties’ recommendation for a three-level, fast track departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, and by denying the government’s recommendation for a six-level departure for substantial assistance pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). The record reflects that the district court considered both the fast track and substantial assistance recommendations, and determined that a total one-level reduction was appropriate. See United States v. Evans-Martinez, 611 F.3d 635, 643 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A district court’s decision to grant [a substantial assistance] motion does not bind the court . . . to stay at the level recommended by the government.”). To the extent Conley challenges the district court’s discretionary decisions regarding the fast track and substantial assistance departures, our review is limited to determining whether the court imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Conley’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Conley’s extensive criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 15-50347
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.
