Case ID: f-appx_615/html/0448-01.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. Jack Robert GRAY, III, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-30261.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
    Fredric N. Weinhouse, Assistant U.S., Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas J. Hester, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, 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

Jack Robert Gray, III, appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 60-day custodial sentence and 24-month term of supervision imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gray contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the nature of his violation, his personal history, and the facts of the case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Gray’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Contrary to Gray’s contention, the record reflects that the district court was concerned primarily with Gray’s breach of trust and the need to deter, rather than with punishing him for using marijuana. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007). Moreover, the below-Guidelines 60-day custodial sentence and 24-month term of supervised release are substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.