USA V. DAVID REEKS, No. 17-30177 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 15 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-30177 D.C. No. 1:17-cr-00022-SPW MEMORANDUM* DAVID WILLIAM REEKS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. David William Reeks appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). 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). Accordingly, Reeks’s request for oral argument is denied. Reeks argues that the district court placed too much weight on the nature and circumstances of the offense, and too little weight on his remorse and substance abuse and mental health issues, resulting in a substantively unreasonable sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The record reflects that the court considered several of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors before imposing the sentence. The aboveGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Reeks’s criminal history and then-pending state charges. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various [section 3553(a)] factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”) AFFIRMED. 2 17-30177

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.