Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSHUA DAVID FINK, a.k.a. David Joshua Fink, a.k.a. Wolverine, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM*
Joshua David Fink appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the concurrent 63-month sentences imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possession of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Fink contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide an adequate explanation for its rejection of Fink's argument that his criminal history category overrepresented the seriousness of his criminal history. Because Fink raises this contention for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The district court expressly discussed Fink's argument regarding his criminal history category and ultimately determined that a downward variance was not warranted because the circumstances of Fink's crimes of conviction demonstrated that he posed a danger to the public. The record as a whole reflects the basis for the district court's determination, and the district court did not plainly err in its explanation. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[A]dequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole.”).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-50412
Decided: December 22, 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)