Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0655-01.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. William SLATTERY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-50457.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 20, 2012.
    Patricia A. Donahue, Assistant U.S., Curtis Arthur Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Anthony Eaglin, Esquire, Anthony Eag-lin, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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

Slattery contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately its reasons for the revocation sentence. The record belies his contention.

Slattery next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of Slattery’s breach of trust and failure to be deterred, and the need to protect the public, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3588(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007) (where defendant violates supervised release by committing same offense for which he was placed on supervised release, breach of trust is more significant and “greater sanctions may be required to deter future criminal activity”).

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