Case ID: f-appx_581/html/0638-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Danny HANKS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10303.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 25, 2014.
    
    Filed June 27, 2014.
    Roger Dokken, Assistant U.S. USPXOffice of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gail Gianasi Natale, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jerry Danny Hanks appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hanks contends that the district court procedurally erred by imposing the maximum term of imprisonment to punish him for his underlying crime and his multiple violations of supervised release.' He also argues that the court failed to consider the mitigating circumstance of his hip condition, and did not adequately explain the above-Guideline sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court was aware of the Guidelines range and Hank’s mitigating arguments, and did not impose sentence to punish Hanks, but rather on the basis of Hank’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007) (at a revocation sentencing, the court may sanction the violator for his breach of the court’s trust). Furthermore, the court adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.