Case ID: f-appx_709/html/0496-01.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. Guy Eric WALDRON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-30072
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 19, 2018
    Tom Bartleson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USHE — Office of the US Attorney, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana (Missoula), Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guy Eric Waldron appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Waldron contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court improperly assessed Wal-dron’s risk to the public. We review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Although the 24-month sentence represents an upward variance from the Guidelines range, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. This sentence is substantively reasonable in light of Waldron’s criminal history and breach of trust, including his repeated supervised release violations. See 18 U.S.C § 3583(e); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (at a revocation sentencing, the district court may sanction the defendant for breaching the court’s trust by failing to abide by the conditions of supervision).

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