USA V. LANSING ROCK ABOVE, No. 19-30051 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-30051 D.C. No. 1:18-cr-00060-SPW-1 v. MEMORANDUM* LANSING ZACHARY ROCK ABOVE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 15, 2019** Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Lansing Zachary Rock Above appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the sentence of 74 months and 14 days imposed following his guiltyplea conviction for assault resulting in substantial bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(7) and 1153(a), and tampering with a victim, witness, or * 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). informant, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b) and 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Rock Above contends that the district court erred by failing to grant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the Sentencing Guidelines to those findings for abuse of discretion. See United States v. GascaRuiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the adjustment because the record supports its finding that Rock Above’s statements to the probation officer and the court, including those asserting that the allegations against him were false and minimizing the seriousness of his conduct, were inconsistent with genuine contrition for his actions. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a): United States v. Rodriguez, 851 F.3d 931, 949 (9th Cir. 2017). To the extent that Rock Above argues that he was entitled to an additional one-level reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b), he was ineligible for this reduction because the government did not move for it. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) & cmt. n.6 (2018). AFFIRMED. 2 19-30051
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.
