Case ID: f-appx_331/html/0515-02.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. Sean Michael WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-30447.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 11, 2009.
    
    Filed Aug. 13, 2009.
    Fredric N. Weinhouse, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Ellen C. Pitcher, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sean Michael Wilson appeals from the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Wilson contends that the district court violated 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) by failing to state the basis for its sentence in open court at the revocation hearing. This contention is belied by the record.

Wilson also contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and by improperly considering unproved allegations concerning the seriousness of the original offense. The district court did not procedurally err. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 601, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.2007). To the extent Wilson challenges the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, the sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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