Case ID: f-appx_401/html/0297-01.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. James Timothy HAYES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30071.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 28, 2010.
    Johnathan S. Haub, Assistant U.S., Stephen Francis Peifer, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kristina Heilman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

James Timothy Hayes appeals from the eight-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hayes contends that the district court erred by considering legally impermissible factors when imposing the sentence. The record reflects that the district court considered the appropriate sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and was sanctioning Hayes for “breach of trust.” See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir.2006).

Hayes also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons for the sentence imposed, and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err and that, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); see also Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1176 (sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release reviewed for reasonableness).

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