Case ID: f-appx_166/html/0938-01.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. Gary L. BUTTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-30230.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 9, 2005.
    
    Filed Jan. 27, 2006.
    Bernard F. Hubley, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Edmund F. Sheehy, Jr., Esq., Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gary L. Button (Button) appeals the revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a twelve-month sentence. Button argues that the district court erred by imposing imprisonment for his release-condition violation and that the resulting sentence was unreasonable. We affirm the district court’s revocation decision and sentence.

“We review a district court’s application of the supervised release statute de novo.” United States v. Ortuño-Higareda, 421 F.3d 917, 922 (9th Cir.2005) (citation omitted). Button’s admission of possession of a controlled substance in violation of a release condition authorized mandatory revocation under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). In accordance with Application Note No. 6 to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 (2004), the district court considered the continuation of supervised release with additional drug treatment rather than the imposition of imprisonment. Ultimately, however, the court imposed a twelve-month sentence based upon Button’s prior difficulties in complying with supervised release conditions. Since the policy statements in Chapter 7 of the Guidelines are not binding, United States v. George, 184 F.3d 1119, 1121-22 (9th Cir.1999), the court did not err in choosing imprisonment under § 3583(g) rather than continued supervised release under Application Note No. 6.

Button’s challenge under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), of the reasonableness of his twelve-month revocation sentence similarly lacks merit. Following Booker, we continue to review revocation sentences for abuse of discretion, not for unreasonableness. See Ortuño-Higareda, 421 F.3d at 922 (citation omitted). Section 3583(g), not the Sentencing Guidelines, governs Button’s release revocation. The district court complied with § 3583(g)’s terms, applying the statute based upon Button’s admission of a predicate violation and imposing a revocation sentence within the relevant statutory maximum. There was no abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.