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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. NEREIDA HUSC HER , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-50085

D.C . No. 5:14-c r-00010-VAP-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 11, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, TASHIM A, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . Ne re ida Husc he r (“ Husc he r” ) a

ppe a ls from

a distric t c o urt orde r re voking he r supe rvise d re le a se and se nte nc i ng he r to 11 m onths in prison for viola ting the c onditions of he

r re le a se . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd 18 U.S.C . § 3742, a

n d we a ffirm

the se nte nc e . 

# FIL ED FEB 29 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.W e re vie w the de c ision to re voke supe rvise d re le a se for an a

buse of disc re tion. Unite d State

s v . Harv e y , 659 F.3d 1272, 1274 (9th C ir. 2011). W e re vie w se nte nc e s, inc luding se nte nc e s im pose d upon re v oc ation of supervise d re le a se , for re a sona

b le ne ss. Unite d State

s v . Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th C ir. 2007) . 1. The te rm s a

nd c onditions of Husche r’ s supe rvise d re l e a se re quire d he r to re port for drug te s ting a nd to a bsta in from

drug use . In a ddition, the te rm s a llowe d “ the Probation Offic e r, with thea gre e m e nt of the de fe nda nt a nd de fe nse c ounse l, [to] pla c e the de fe nda nt in a re side ntia l drug tre atm e nt progra m .” Husc he r fa ile d to re port for te sting a nd, on m ultipleoc c a sions, te ste d positive for drug use . The probation offic e r orde re d Husc he r to e nroll in inpa tie nt tre atm e nt a

nd, a fte r Husc he r fa ile d to e nte r suc h tre atm e nt, pe titione d for a viola tion of supervise d re le a se and re c om

m e nde d he r re le a se be re voke d. Ye t, whe n orde ring inpa

t ie nt tre atm e nt, the probation offic e r fa ile d to c onsult with Husc

he r’ s c ounse l. This fa ilure am ounts to a viola tion of thee xpre s s te rm s of Husc he r’ s supe rvise d re le a se . C onse que ntly , a l though Husc he r a d m itte d the a lle gation, by

holding Husche r in viola tion of this c ondition of her re le a se , the c ourt e rre d.

22. This e rror is not suffic ie nt, howe ve r, to re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s

se nte nc e , whic h c om

porte d with there voc at ion re quire m e nts of 18 U.S.C . § 3538(a ). The se nte n c e wa s substa ntive ly re a s ona b le in light of Husche r’ s m ultipleviola

tions of the o t

he r te rm s a

nd c o nditions of her re le a se , a s the c o urt a ddre s se d during he aring. Se e Unite d State s v . Sandoval-Ore llana , 714 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ If the re c ord ‘ m ake s c le ar that the se nte nc i ng judgeliste ne d to e a c h a rgum e nt’ and ‘ c onside re d the supporting evide nc e ,’ the distric t c ourt’ s sta te m e nt of re a sons for the se nte nc e , a lthough brie f, will be ‘ le g a lly suffic ie nt.’ ” ) (quoting Rita v . Unite d State s , 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007)). The se nte n c e wa s a lso proc e dura lly re a sona ble

— the c ourt a ddre sse d Husc he r’ s a

rgum e nts; e xpla i ne d the rationa le for its de c ision; a nd ha nde d down a se nte nc e tha

t wa s within the

Guide line s ra

n ge for the othe r viola

tions. Theothe r viola tions a re of the sa

m e gra de a s the inpa

tie nt tre atm e nt c ondition a nd inde pe nde ntly

y ie ld the sa

m e se nte nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . Vale nc ia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th C ir. 2010) (finding no e rror whe re “ t

he distric t c ourt liste ne d to [de fe nda

nt’ s] argum e nts, sta

te d tha t it ha d re vie we d the c rite ria se t forth in § 3553(a), an d

im pose d a se nte nc e within theGuide line s ra nge ” ).

3Assum ing the distric t c ourt e rre d in holding Husc he r re sponsiblefor viola ting thete rm s of he r re le a se , none the l e ss, the distric t c ourt ultimat e ly provide d a

re a sona ble s e nte nc e whic h we a ffirm . AFFIRM E D .

4