Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0661-01.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. Kisha Lyn Masga KING, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10013.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Nov. 21, 2014.
    Garth R. Backe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James J. Benedetto, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sai-pan, MP, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Bruce Berline, Esquire, Law Office of Bruce Berline, Saipan, MP, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kisha Lyn Masga King appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 11-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

King contends that the district court proeedurally erred at sentencing by (i) relying improperly on the need to punish and to promote rehabilitation, (ii) failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3588(e) sentencing factors, and (iii) failing to explain the above-Guidelines 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 did not impose the sentence for punitive purposes. Moreover, although the court did discuss its hope that King would deal with her substance abuse problem, it did not impose or lengthen her sentence to promote rehabilitation. See United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 281-82 (9th Cir.2011). Finally, the court adequately considered the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and explained that the 11-month sentence was warranted in light of King’s failure to be deterred and repeated breaches of the court’s trust. 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.