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. Kyle J. TATE, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Kyle J. Tate appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Tate contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his policy arguments regarding the child pornography guideline. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Tate’s policy-based arguments and found them unpersuasive. See United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[D]istrict courts are not obligated to vary from the child pornography Guidelines on policy grounds if they do not have, in fact, a policy disagreement with them.”). Moreover, Tate has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the court explicitly addressed his policy-based arguments. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
Tate also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because he had no prior offenses and was convicted of simple possession. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
AFFIRMED.
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. 17-30080
Decided: March 23, 2018
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)