USA V. FLOYD BEST, JR., No. 16-30030 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 6 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-30030 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00031-JLQ v. MEMORANDUM* FLOYD DEAN BEST, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Floyd Dean Best, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the ten-year term of supervised release imposed following his guiltyplea conviction for conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture or substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), * 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). (b)(1)(B) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Best contends that the district court impermissibly imposed the term of supervised release to punish him. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that the district court did not plainly err. Contrary to Best’s contention, the record reflects that the district court properly based the term of supervised release on Best’s history and characteristics, as well as the need for deterrence, and did not rely on any improper factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c). Moreover, the ten-year term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to deter Best from future criminal conduct. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 16-30030

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.