United States v. Kloepfel

── United States v. Kloepfel ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-1068 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:24-cr-00045-TOR-1 v. MEMORANDUM* NICHOLAS J. KLOEPFEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 24, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: W. FLETCHER and KOH, Circuit Judges, and RAYES, District Judge.*** Nicholas J. Kloepfel appeals from his 96-month sentence, following a guilty plea, for one count of felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8). Kloepfel argues that the district court committed multiple procedural errors and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. On appeal, “only a procedurally erroneous or substantively unreasonable sentence will be set aside.” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 341 (2007)). When an appellant objects to procedural errors at sentencing, we review for abuse of discretion. Id. Absent objection before the district court, we review alleged procedural errors for plain error. United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2010); Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 589 U.S. 169, 171 (2020). “[T]he substantive reasonableness of a sentence—whether objected to or not at sentencing—is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2009). We first consider whether the district court committed a procedural error, and then we consider whether the sentence is substantively reasonable. Carty, 520 F.3d at 993 (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). Procedural error includes failing to calculate (or calculating incorrectly) the proper U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), choosing a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to explain a selected sentence, including any 2 25-1068 deviation from the Guidelines range. Id. 1. The district court did not procedurally err by imposing an above- Guidelines sentence based in part on the fact that Kloepfel had multiple firearms, a fact which was already accounted for in Kloepfel’s total offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). In his reply, Kloepfel concedes this alleged error should be considered in our review of the sentence’s substantive reasonableness. 2. The district court did not procedurally err by jumping from Criminal History Category II to Category VI rather than moving through the categories incrementally. The district court was not under an obligation to move through the criminal history catego