Otto
United States v. Otto
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Fred Jay Otto appeals from the 92-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for Bank Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Otto contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 and that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately consider his severe mental illness. We disagree.
A review of the record demonstrates that the district court properly calculated and considered the Guidelines, properly considered the sentencing factors pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), and analyzed the policy considerations of U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 in denying a downward departure. Thus, Otto’s sentence was reasonable. See United States v. Mohamed) 459 F.3d 979, 985-87 (9th Cir.2006).
Contrary to Otto’s contentions, the district court properly considered his mental health problems. While addressing the § 3553(a) factors, the district court considered Otto’s history of drag abuse, mental health and his use of a serious threat of violence in sentencing him to the low end of the Guidelines range.