Case ID: f-appx_615/html/0465-02.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. Patrick John ROPE, a.k.a. Patrick Rope, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10460.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 2, 2015.
    Thomas C. Simon, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Milagros Anais Cisneros, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Patrick Rope appeals the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Rope argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the Guidélines range and to explain why it was imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. We review for plain error. See United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.2009). The district court erred when it failed to calculate the Guidelines range. See id. at 1105. The record reflects, however, that the court was aware of the Guidelines range and its explanation for the sentence was adequate. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc.) Thus, Rope has failed to show a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence absent the error. See United States v. Tapia, 665 F.3d 1059, 1061 (9th Cir.2011). Moreover, the record does not support Rope’s contention that the district court imposed the sentence to punish Rope’s violation conduct or previous criminal acts.

Rope also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The distinct court did not abuse its discretion. 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 the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Rope’s breach of the court’s trust and the need to protect the public. See id.; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007).

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