Case ID: f-appx_587/html/0356-01.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. Mario RHODES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10669.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 5, 2014.
    
    Field Dec. 12, 2014.
    William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, Michael Chu, Assistant U.S., Daniel D. Hollingsworth, Esquire, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alina Maria Shell, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Rhodes appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 22-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rhodes contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the allegedly minor nature of his violations. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Rhodes’s multiple violations of supervised release and the court’s determination that Rhodes failed to take responsibility for his breach of the court’s trust. See id.

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