Case ID: f-appx_535/html/0610-01.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. Shane Kenneth BRIZENDINE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30263.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 1, 2013.
    Anthony G. Hall, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Christian S. Nafzger, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of The U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John Charles Defranco, Esquire, Ells-worth, Kallas, Talboy & Defranco, P.L.L.C., Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shane Kenneth Brizendine appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 140-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846; and the 24-month, partially concurrent sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Brizendine contends that his 152-month aggregate sentence is substantively unreasonable. He argues that the court should have imposed an aggregate sentence of no more than 140 months. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Brizendine’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Brizendine’s 140-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id. Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that 12 months of the revocation sentence be served consecutively to the 140-month sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f).

Brizendine’s motion to dismiss counsel and appoint new counsel received on June 26, 2013, is deemed filed and denied.

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