Case ID: f-appx_656/html/0346-01.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. 15-50335
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 02, 2016
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Anthony Brown, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Kathy Yu, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Ange-les, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Gia Kim, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Lisa Shinar LaBarre, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public, Los Ange-les, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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 district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his third revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Slattery contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court overstated the seriousneás of the violation and failed to credit his attempts at rehabilitation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Slattery’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Slattery’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust and the need to protect the public. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, contrary to Slattery’s contention, the district court did not base the sentence on any clearly erroneous fact. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (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.