United States of America v. Randall Kief Wariner

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RANDALL KIEF WARINER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 12-30114
12-30115
D.C. Nos. 3:11-cr-00365-MA
3:00-cr-00110-MA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Randall Kief Wariner appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and the consecutive 24-month sentence
FILED
OCT 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30114 & 12-30115 2
imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Wariner contends that the district court erred by failing to consider
adequately his arguments in support of a time-served sentence, and by failing to
provide adequate and factually accurate reasons for the sentence. The district court
acknowledged Wariner’s arguments, discussed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors, and explained the reasons for the sentence. Its failure to do more was not
plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010). Moreover, any error committed by the district court with respect to
Wariner’s history of supervised release violations did not affect the sentence
selected. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Wariner also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of the minor nature of his last firearm possession offense, the absence of law
enforcement contact since he absconded from supervised release, and the inability
of his plants to produce potent marijuana. Under the totality of the circumstances
and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively
reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --