United States of America v. Amanda Lee McGee

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AMANDA LEE MCGEE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-30003
D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00083-TOR-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Amanda Lee McGee appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for
being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
* 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).
FILED
AUG 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-30003
affirm.
McGee challenges the district court’s denial of her request for a downward
departure, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b), for the alleged overrepresentation of
her criminal history. We review this claim only as part of our overall review of the
substantive reasonableness of the sentence, see United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d
411, 421-22 (9th Cir. 2011), which McGee also challenges. The below-Guidelines
sentence is not an abuse of discretion in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors and the totality of the circumstances, including McGee’s significant
criminal history and the need to promote respect for the law. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 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.”). Further, contrary to
McGee’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered her
mitigating arguments and the section 3553(a) factors and thoroughly explained its
reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --