Case ID: f-appx_313/html/0006-01.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. Solomon Bitton SIMTOB, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 07-30292.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2008.
    
    Filed March 24, 2008.
    
      Carl E. Rostad, USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David F. Ness, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FISHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, United States District Judge.
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court’s 36-month revocation sentence was reasonable. The district court made clear that it was not placing any special emphasis on the seriousness of Simtob’s criminal conduct. See United States v. Simtob, 485. F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (9th Cir.2007). Instead, the district court relied primarily on Simtob’s “continued pattern of unlawful behavior,” a permissible consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Id. at 1063. Given Simtob’s extensive criminal history and the likelihood of recidivism, we cannot say that the sentence was unreasonable. See generally Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

Because the government properly raised its objection to Simtob’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal, we are required to dismiss the portion of Simtob’s appeal challenging his 2005 conviction and sentence. See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937-40 (9th Cir.2007).

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