USA V. ROBERTS, No. 23-347 (9th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 1 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 23-345 23-347 D.C. Nos. 2:22-cr-00377-AB-1 2:20-cr-00554-AB-1 MEMORANDUM* ALEX SCOTT ROBERTS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California André Birotte Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2024 ** Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Alex Scott Roberts appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 85-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for stalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261A(A)-(B) and 2261(b)(5), and cyberstalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1291, and we affirm. Roberts contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it affords too much weight to the nature and circumstances of his offense and too little weight to his mental health conditions and need for treatment on supervised release. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the egregious manner in which Roberts threatened and harassed the victims, his criminal history involving similar conduct, and the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. GutierrezSanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). AFFIRMED. 2 23-345

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.