United States v. Voisine
495 F. App'x 101
1st Cir.
2013
Check Treatment
Docket

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Stephen L. VOISINE, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 12-1213.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Jan. 18, 2013.

101

Virginia G. Villa, Assistant Federal Public Defender, on brief for appellant.

Rene M. Bunker, Assistant United States Attorney, and Thomas E. Delahanty II, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

Before LYNCH, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and STAHL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-Appellant Stephen L. Voisine asks us to reconsider arguments heard in and decided by this court regarding: (1) whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) should be construed to exclude a purportedly non-violent offensive physical contact misdemeanor conviction as a predicate offense; and (2) whether applying § 922(g)(9) to such a prior conviction would violate a particular defendant‘s Second Amendment rights. See

;
. The Court considered and denied the exact same arguments in
. Since there are no pertinent factual differences distinguishing the instant case from
, we accordingly incorporate its reasoning here and affirm the district court‘s denial of Defendant-Appellant‘s motion to dismiss the indictment.

So Ordered.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. George F. RAYNER, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 12-1354.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Jan. 18, 2013.

102

Harold J. Hainke and Hainke & Tash on brief for appellant.

Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorney, and Thomas E. Delahanty II, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

Before HOWARD, SELYA and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a single-issue sentencing appeal. It follows a jury verdict finding defendant-appellant George F. Rayner guilty of bankruptcy fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 152(1), and the district court‘s imposition of an incarcerative sentence of one year and one day.

The defendant‘s challenge to the sentence asserts that the district court did not appropriately consider and weigh the sentencing factors limned in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and, as a result, fashioned a sentence that was greater than necessary to provide just punishment. We have carefully reviewed the district court record and the parties’ briefs, and we find the defendant‘s argument to be meritless.

We need not tarry. The guideline sentencing range in this case is not contested; that range spans 21-27 months. The district court effected a downward variance in favor of the defendant and imposed a sentence of one year and one day—slightly more than one-half of the low point of the guideline sentencing range. In doing so, the court explicitly considered and weighed the totality of the circumstances, including the factors prescribed by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

As best we can tell, the defendant‘s real complaint is not that the district court ignored the appropriate factors but, rather, that it weighed those factors differently than the defendant had hoped. Because the resulting sentence is neither procedurally flawed nor substantively unreasonable, it commands our approbation. See

;
.

We need go no further. The judgment of the district court is summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

Affirmed.