Case ID: f-appx_637/html/0432-01.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. Keynan Stroud NEWSHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30227.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Francis Franze-Nakamura, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Charlene Koski, Assistant U.S., Steven Toshio Masada, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lee Edmond, Law Office of Lee Edmond, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Keynan Stroud Newsham appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 14-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Newsham contends that the district court erred by failing to explain its sentence adequately. We review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010). The record reflects that the court’s explanation of its above-Guidelines sentence was adequate. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Newsham additionally contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. We review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 14-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Newsham’s history of consistently violating the conditions of his supervised release. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

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