Case ID: f-appx_464/html/0653-01.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. Jason Lee FISHER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30151.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 30, 2011.
    Lori Anne Harper Suek, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Vernon Edward Woodward, Woodward & Casey, PLLC, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jason Lee Fisher appeals from the 22-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Fisher contends that the district court proeedurally erred because it failed to explain its reasons for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. He also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court impermissibly relied on factors not enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Fisher’s contentions are not supported by the record. The district court did not proeedurally err, and Fisher’s sentence is reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007) (“[A] district court may properly look to and consider the conduct underlying the revocation as one of many acts contributing to the severity of the violator’s breach of trust so as not to preclude a full review of the violator’s history and the violator’s likelihood of repeating that history.”).

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