United States of America v. Ryan Andrew Hamburg

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RYAN ANDREW HAMBURG,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-30146
D.C. No. 3:13-cr-05514-RBL-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2016**
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Ryan Hamburg appeals from the 35-year sentence imposed following his
guilty plea convictions for production of child pornography, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2251(a),(e), receipt and distribution of child pornography, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), (b)(1), and possession of child pornography, in violation
FILED
JUN 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), (b)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291, and we affirm.
Hamburg contends that the district court failed to provide an adequate
explanation for the sentence, including failing to adequately discuss the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors and failing to address arguments he made for a lower sentence.
Because Hamburg did not object on these grounds at sentencing, plain error review
applies. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010). Hamburg therefore must show not only that there was error that was plain,
but also that such error affected his substantial rights because there is a reasonable
probability that he would have received a different sentence absent the error. See
United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008).
It is apparent from the record that the court adequately explained the reasons
for the sentence, including adequately addressing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
and the arguments raised by Hamburg. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338,
356 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc);
see also United States v. Maciel-Vasquez, 458 F.3d 994, 995 (9th Cir. 2006)
(recognizing that a sentencing court is not required to state why it chose a
particular sentence rather than other potential sentences). The district court did not
plainly err. See Dallman, 533 F.3d at 761-62.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 35-
year sentence. The sentence is not substantively unreasonable in light of the
totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including not
only the mandatory minimum sentence and the Sentencing Guidelines, but the
seriousness of the offense, the need to protect the public, the need for deterrence,
and Hamburg’s history and characteristics. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --