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. Matthew Tyler CHARLES, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Matthew Tyler Charles appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-month sentence imposed upon his guilty-plea conviction for domestic assault by a habitual offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 117(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Charles first contends that the district court erred by denying a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). We review for clear error a district court’s determination of whether a defendant has accepted responsibility. See United States v. Rodriguez, 851 F.3d 931, 949 (9th Cir. 2017). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Charles’s conduct, which Charles conceded below warranted an upward adjustment for obstruction of justice, was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.4 (obstructive conduct “ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility”); United States v. Hopper, 27 F.3d 378, 383 (9th Cir. 1994) (when defendant receives an obstruction of justice enhancement, an acceptance of responsibility adjustment is available only in the “extraordinary case” when the obstructive conduct is not inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility). Moreover, contrary to Charles’s contention, the district court sufficiently explained its refusal to grant the reduction. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-58, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).
Charles also argues that the statutory maximum sentence is substantively unreasonable, given his “horrendous” childhood and his postconviction efforts to educate and rehabilitate himself. 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 60-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offense and Charles’s significant criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.
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. 18-30225
Decided: May 23, 2019
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)