United States v. Albert Hood

MEMORANDUM

Albert Hood appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 96-month sentence imposed following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Hood contends that the district court proeedurally erred at sentencing because it never mentioned 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) generally, did not mention some of the specific § 3553(a) factors, and never explicitly stated that the sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes set forth in § 3553(a). Because Hood did not object on these grounds below, we review for plain error. See United, States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010). The district court did not plainly err. We presume that the district court knows the law, and it was not required to discuss each factor or state that the sentence was no greater than necessary. See United States v. Rodriguez-Castro, 641 F.3d 1189, 1194 (9th Cir.2011); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Hood contends that the 96-month sentence is substantively unreasonable because the…