United States v. Philip Stott

MEMORANDUM

Philip Stott appeals from the 12-month consecutive sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for theft and receipt of stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Stott contends that the district court procedurally erred when it ordered his sentence to run consecutive to his undischarged state sentence. Specifically, he contends that the district court failed to consult U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 and its application notes, failed to consider the sentencing disparity allegedly caused by imposition of a consecutive sentence, and relied on a clearly erroneous finding that the state offense was unrelated to the instant offense. The record does not support his contentions. The court was aware of its discretion to impose a concurrent or consecutive sentence, and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors before imposing a consecutive term. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584 ; U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c); United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1012 (9th Cir.2010) (“[Sentencing disparity is only one factor a court considers in crafting an individualized sentence under § 3553(a).”). Moreover, the court’s finding that…