United States of America v. Howard Wesley Cotterman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HOWARD WESLEY COTTERMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10454
D.C. No. 4:07-cr-01207-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Howard Wesley Cotterman appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 35-year sentence imposed following his bench-trial convictions for
two counts of production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2251(a), (e), and 2256(2); transportation and shipping of child pornography, in
FILED
OCT 19 2015
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 2 --

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(1), (b)(1), and 2256(2); possession of child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B), (b)(2), and 2256(2); and
importation of obscene material, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1462(a). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cotterman first argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and by failing to adequately
explain its sentencing decision. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. A court
is not required to discuss each individual sentencing factor, and we assume that the
district court knew the law and understood its obligation to consider the factors
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc). Moreover, the reasons for imposing the sentence are readily
apparent from the record. See id.
Next, Cotterman asserts that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We
review a claim that a sentence is substantively unreasonable for abuse of
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In light of the
troubling nature of the offense, as well as Cotterman’s criminal history, the court
did not abuse its discretion. See id.
AFFIRMED.
14-10454 2

-- 2 of 2 --