United States v. Curtis Eder

Good Law
475 F. App'x 186
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 27, 201211-30345California266 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Curtis Ray Eder appeals from the 365-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for second-degree murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 1111, and assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 (a) and 113(a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Eder first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to grant a two-point downward adjustment to his offense level for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. In light of the record before it, the district court did not/clearly err by denying the adjustment. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 5; United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 369 F.3d 1076, 1088-89 (9th Cir.2004).

Eder next contends that the district court erred by applying a two-level vulnerable victim enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3Al.l(b)(l). Given the district court’s finding that the victim was in a prone position when he was attacked, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the enhancement. See United States v. Weischedel, 201 F.3d 1250, 1254-55 (9th Cir.2000). The district court did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States v. Carty,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.