N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. SYNDA L. C O LLINS,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-30175

DC No. C R 11-0027 TM B
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska Tim othy M . B urge ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

June 13, 2019 ** Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : TASHIM A , W . FLETC HER , and B ER ZON, C irc u it Judge s. De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt Sy n da C ollins a ppe a l s the sta

tutory m a x im um se nte nc e im pose d by the distric t c ourt upon re voc ation of he r supe rvise d re le a s e . She
argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by foc using prim arily

on the se riousne ss of he r 

# FIL ED
JUL 23 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2)(C ).ne w c rim ina l offe nse a s a prim a ry fa c tor in de te rm ining he r re voc ation se nte nc e , in
c ontra ve ntion of Ninth C irc u it pre c e de nt. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd be c a use C o l lins did not ra

ise this obje c tion during the re v oc ation he aring be fore the distric t c o urt, we re vie w for pla i n e rror. Unite d State s v . Hammons , 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th C ir. 2009); Fe d. R
. C rim . P. 52(b). Pla in e rror is: “ (1) e rror, (2) that is pla in, a

nd (3) a ffe c ts substa

ntia l rights.” Unite d State s v . Ame line , 409 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th C ir. 2005) (e n ba nc ). If those c onditions a re m e t, the n we
m ay e xe rc ise our disc re tion to c orre c t the e rror if it “ s e riously a ffe c ts the fa irne ss, inte grity , or public re p utat ion of judic ia l proc e e dings.” Id. B e c a use we a gre e with C ollins tha

t the distric t c ourt pla inly e rre d , we re ve rse and re m and for
re se nte nc ing. A distric t c o urt m a

y not re ly upon these riousne ss of the ne w c rim ina l offe nse unde rly ing re v oc at i on of supe rvise d re le a se a s a

prim ary justific ation for im posing a pa rtic u la r re voc ation se nte nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th C ir. 2007); Unite d State s v . Miqbe l , 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th C ir. 2006); s e e also 18 U.S.C . §§ 3553(a)(2)(A), 3583(e ). In this c a se , the distric t judge ’ s se nte nc i ng re m arks m ak e c le ar tha t the distric t c ourt did just tha t in de te rm i ning C o llins’ se nte nc e upon re voc ation of he r supe rvise d re le a se . The distric t c o urt be ga

n its se nte nc ing re m arks by inc orre c tly

sta ting tha t it ne e de d to
2c onside r the fa c t ors in § 3553(a ), inc luding “the ne e d

for the se nte nc e to re fle c t the
se riousne ss of the offe n se .” The distric t c ourt la te r e xplic itly

a ddre sse d “ [t] he
se riousne ss of the offe n se ,” disc ussing a t le ngth theoffe nse ’ s im

pa c t on thevic tim
and his fa m ily in orde r to e m

pha siz e “ how se rious this offense wa s .” 1 The distric t
c ourt’ s foc us on this fa c tor, a nd sugge stion tha

t this fa c tor wa s “ c ritic a lly im porta nt,” de m onstra

t e tha t the distric t c ourt re lie d on the se riousne ss of C ollins’
ne w offe nse a s a

prim a ry c onside ration in fa shioning C ollins’ re voc at ion se nte nc e ; doing so wa s e rror that wa s pla in. This pla i n e rror a ffe c te d C ollins’ s substa ntia l rights a

nd the fa irne ss of he r proc e e dings be c a

use the re is a

“ re a sona ble proba bility ” tha t the distric t c ourt would ha ve im pose d a diffe re nt se nte nc e ha d it not im pe rm issibly

c onside re d the
se riousne ss of the offe n se . Se e Unite d State s v . Varge m , 747 F.3d 724, 728–729 (9th C ir. 2014) (noting tha t se nte nc ing e rror that “pote ntia lly re s ult[e d] in the im position of a

gre ate r se nte nc e . . . a ffe c ts the de fe nda nt’ s substa

ntia l rights a

nd the fa irne ss of the judic ia l proc e e dings,” and the re fore “ satisfie [s] ” the “ third a nd

1 The distric t c ourt’ s re pe ate d re fe re nc e s to the“ se riousne ss of the offe nse ” and e m

pha sis on thela sting im

pa c ts of the a c c ide nt rat

he r tha n on C ollins’ o wn a c t ions show tha t the c ourt im

pe rm issibly

c onside re d

the se riousne ss of the offe nse a s its own sta nd-a lone fa c tor, rathe r tha n m e re l y a s pa rt of C ollins’ c rim ina l history or a s pa

rt of de te rm ining these ve rity of C ollins’ bre a c h of the c ourt’ s trust. Se e Simtob , 485 F.3d a t 1062–63. 3fourth prongs of the pla in-e rror te st” (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d)); se e also Unite d State s v . Tapia , 665 F.3d 1059, 1062–63 (9th C ir. 2011). B e c a u se we
e xe rc ise our disc re tion to c orre c t the distric t c o urt’ s pla i nly e rrone ous re lia

n c e upon these riousne ss of C ollins’ ne w offe nse , we ne e d not re a c h C ollins’ argum e nt that the se nte nc e im

pose d wa s substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble
. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D forr e se nte nc ing.

4