Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0935-01.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. Joseph Brent RAMSEUR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50457
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed October 31, 2016
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Poonam G. Kumar, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Thomas Paul Sleisenger, Law Offices of Thomas P. Sleisenger, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joseph Brent Ramseur appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 10-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramseur contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on unproven allegations of drug use and prior adjudicated violations relating to drug use. The record reflects that, although the district court referred to Ramseur’s substance abuse issues, it did not impose sentence on that basis. Rather, the district court properly imposed sentence based on Ramseur’s “abysmal” performance on supervision, including his decision to abscond for two years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (history of the defendant is a sentencing factor). Because the court’s consideration of Rams-eur’s past drug use did not affect the sentence imposed, Ramseur’s double jeopardy and claim and issue preclusion claims fail.

Ramseur next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the alleged procedural errors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Ramseur’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.