Joseph Arthur RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELMORE, Correctional Lieutenant, Salinas Valley State Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-16900
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Submitted Dec. 14, 2010. Filed Dec. 22, 2010.
124
** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Here, the sentencing judge adequately explained Longee‘s sentence. The judge began by properly calculating the Guidelines range, addressing the relevant
Longee also argues that a lifetime sentence, although within the Guidelines recommendation, is substantively unreasonable. Although within-Guidelines sentences are not presumptively reasonable, this court does “recognize that a correctly calculated Guidelines sentence will normally not be found unreasonable on appeal.” Carty, 520 F.3d at 988.
Longee claims that his “history and characteristics” render the sentence substantively unreasonable. However, Longee does not explain how or why his personal history affects his culpability, or how this history renders a Guidelines sentence unreasonable.
Longee also argues that a life-term is “longer than necessary” to achieve the statutory purposes of punishment. But Longee has not demonstrated “how, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court abused its discretion,” United States v. Crowe, 563 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir.2009), especially given the district court‘s thorough explanation and the danger that Longee poses to the community. See United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 937 (9th Cir.2009).
III
also argues that the district court erred by not declaring a mistrial after the jury indicated that it was deadlocked. This court considered a similar appeal in United States v. Green, 962 F.2d 938 (9th Cir.1992). There the court stated that it “accord[s] great deference to a trial judge‘s decision whether to declare a mistrial because of jury deadlock.” Id. at 944. Given that the jury had only deliberated for a few hours, the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the jury to deliberate longer. See United States v. Sommerstedt, 752 F.2d 1494, 1498 (9th Cir.1985) (affirming a district court‘s decision not to declare a mistrial and instead to order the jury to deliberate for an additional full day). AFFIRMED.
Michael James Quinn, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Joseph Arthur Rodriguez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court‘s judgment in his
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the excessive force claim because Rodriguez failed to raise a triable issue as to whether prison officials “acted maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm” by using
The district court also properly dismissed the deliberate indifference claim because Rodriguez failed to allege facts supporting an inference that prison medical officials who examined him after his pepper spray decontamination knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health and safety. See Clement, 298 F.3d at 904 (” ‘Deliberate indifference’ is evidenced only ‘when the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety ....’ “) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994)).
We do not consider Rodriguez‘s contentions not supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1992).
Rodriguez‘s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.