Case ID: f-appx_543/html/0659-01.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. Jason Lee JENNEN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-30016.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 16, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 23, 2013.
    Matthew F. Duggan, USSP-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jason Lee Jennen appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the nine-month custodial term and the 25-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jennen contends that the district court erred procedurally by (1) presuming that a within-Guidelines sentence was reasonable; (2) failing to explain adequately why it rejected the sentencing recommendations of both parties in favor of the sentence selected; and (3) relying improperly upon rehabilitation in selecting a sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n. 3 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court did not presume the reasonableness of a within-Guidelines sentence and that it considered the arguments of both parties and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Furthermore, the record reflects that the court considered Jennen’s need and desire for rehabilitation in the appropriate context of evaluating the need for a supervised release term, rather than in determining whether to impose a prison term or the length of that term. See United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 280, 282 (9th Cir. 2011).

Jennen also argues that the overall sentence is substantively unreasonable. 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), and find none. The sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors, including the need to deter and to protect the public. See id.

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