Case ID: f-appx_632/html/0351-01.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. Thomas J. EMBRY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30096.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 25, 2016.
    Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., John David Sullivan, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Steven C. Babcock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant. . •
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Thomas J. Embry appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Embry contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Embry’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) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Embry’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust and the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006). Moreover, contrary to Embry’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered only proper sentencing factors. See Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1182.

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