Case ID: f-appx_516/html/0645-02.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. Holyan Carl MASSEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10439.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 16, 2013.
    
    Filed April 22, 2013.
    Vincent Q. Kirby, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jeanette Elizabeth Alvarado, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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

Massey contends that his statutory maximum sentence is substantively unreasonable. He argues that the district court gave too much weight to the degree of his intoxication at the time of his arrest, which is not the conduct that triggered the revocation of his supervised release. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Massey’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of Massey’s history, his repeated breaches of the court’s trust, and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007).

To the extent Massey argues that the district court erred by imposing the 24-month sentence for the purpose of rehabilitation, in violation of United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276 (9th Cir.2011), the record reflects that the court did not impose sentence for this purpose.

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