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. IR A LESLIE W ALTR IP,

De fe nda n t - Appe lla

nt. No. 23-829

D.C . No. 2:22-c r-00050-KJM -1

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Kim be rly J. M ue lle r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d

June 7, 2024 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia
B e fore : M

. SM ITH a nd B A DE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd FITZW ATER , * * * Distric t Judge

. 

# FIL ED

JUN 11 2024
M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r op r i at e for public a tion 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.

* * T h e p an el u n an i m o u sl y co n cl u d es t h i s cas e i s s u i tab l e for de c isio n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* ** The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz wa t e r, Unite d Sta t e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.The distric t c ourt se n te n ce d de fe nda n t Ira Le slie W a ltrip to 24 m onths’ im prisonm e nt, followe d by

96 m onths of supe rvise d re le a se , a fte r re v oking the te rm of supe rvise d re le a se tha t he wa s se rving following h is c o nvic tion for posse ssing c hild
pornogra phy while e m

ploy e d a s a c ivilia

n co ntra c tor w i th the Unite d Sta te s Arm e d
Forc e s outside the U nite d S t at es . W a ltrip a ppe a ls, c ha lle nging the s ubsta ntive

re a s ona ble ne s s of the se nte nc e a nd the distric t c ourt’ s fa ilure to s ubtra c t from the ne w
te rm of supe rvise d re l e a se the l e ngth of the t e rm s of im prisonm e nt i m

pose d for prior viola tions o f his s upe rvise d re l e a s e . W e ha ve jurisdic tion u n d er 2 8 U.S.C

. § 1291,

a nd we a ffirm

.

“ In the c onte xt of se nte nc ing upon re v oc a tion of supe rvise d re le a se , we re vie w the se nte n c e im

pose d unde r the Book

e r re a sona

ble n e ss s ta

nda rd.” Unite d State

s v
. Hammons , 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th C ir. 2009); se e also Unite d S tate s v
. Book e r , 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005). W e re vie w a s e nte nc e ’ s substa ntive re a sona

ble ne ss “ for a

buse of discr et i on ba se d on the tota lity of the c irc um sta n c e s .” U nite d S tate s v
. Vasque

zPe re z , 742 F.3d 8 96, 901 (9th C ir. 2014). W e re v ie w the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre ta tion of the supe rvise d re l e a se sta t ute de novo. Se e Unite d State s v
. Harv e y , 659 F.3d 1272, 1274 (9th C ir. 2011).
1. The d i stric t c ourt d i d not a b use its disc re tion in i m

posing a 24-m onth te rm of im prisonm e n t. “ A substa

ntive ly re a sona

b le se n te nc e is one tha

t is ‘ suffic ie nt, but

2not gre a te r tha n ne c e ssa ry ’ to a c c om

plish § 3553(a )[] ’ s se nte n c ing goa ls. ” Unite d
State s v
. C row e , 563 F

. 3d 9 69, 977 n . 16 (9th C i r. 2 009) (quoting 18 U.S.C

. § 3553(a )). “ The touc hstone of ‘ re a sona ble ne ss’ is whe the r the re co r d a s a whole

re fle c t s ra tiona l a nd m e a n i ngful c onside ra tion of the fa c tors e n um e ra te d in 18 U.S.C

. § 3553(a ).” Unite d State

s v . Re ssam , 679 F.3d 1069, 1089 (9th C i r. 2012) (e n ba nc ) (quoting Unite d State

s v . Tomk o , 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d C i r. 2009) (e n ba nc )).
W he n a de fe n d a n t v i o l a te s the c onditions of h is supe rvise d re le a se , the c ourt

m a y

re v oke [the ] ter m of supe rvise d re le a se , a nd re quire the

de fe nda nt t o s e rve in prison a ll or pa rt of t h e t er m o f supe rvise d re l e a se a

uthoriz e d by sta

tute for the o ffe nse tha t re s ulte d in s uc h te rm of s upe r v i s e d re le a se without c re dit for tim e pre v iously se rve d on postre le a se supe rvision, i f the c ourt, p u rsua

n t to the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C rim i na l Proc e dure a pplic a ble to re voc a tion of proba tion o r supe rvise d re le a se , finds by a p re ponde ra nc e o f the e v ide nc e tha t the de fe n da nt viola te d a c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se [.]
18 U.S.C

. § 3583(e )(3). The de fe nda nt “ m a y not be r eq ui r ed to se rve on a ny suc h

re voc a tion

. . . m ore tha

n 2 y e a rs in prison if suc h offe nse is a c la s s C o r D fe lony [.] ” Id. The d e fe nda

nt is “ not to be c re d ite d for prior t er m s o f i m p risonm e n t im

pose d
upon re v oc a tion of [his] s upe rvise d re l e a se ,” b e c a use the sta

tutory c a p a pplie s to e a c h individua l re voc a tion. Unite d State s v
. K night , 58 0 F

. 3 d 933, 9 38 (9th C ir. 2009). The c o urt m a y e x c e e d the a pplic a ble U.S. Se nte nc i ng Gui d el i n es ra nge a n d im pose

3up to the m a xim um se nte nc e pe rm itte d unde r § 3583(e )(3) i f i t sta te s a t the tim e of

se nte nc ing its “ s

p ecific re ason ” for im

posing a longe r s e nte nc e . Unite d State s v
. Miqbe l , 444 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th C ir. 2006) (quoting 18 U.S.C . § 3553(c )(2)). The distric t c ourt im

pose d the sta

tutory m a xim

um s e nte nc e of 2 4 m onths, whic h is a

bove the Guide line s ra nge of 3-9 m o nths. Se e U.S. Se nt’ g Guide line s M a n ua l § 7B 1.4(a ) (U.S. Se nt’ g C om m ’ n 2024). B ut this s e nte nc e wa s substa ntive l y

re a s ona ble

. Th e d i s t r i ct c ourt ga ve spe c ific re a sons for im posing the a

bove

Guide line s se nte n c e : tha t the c ha rge s we re “ ve ry se rious,” tha t the c h a rge s we re “ the lat es t i n a se rie s of re pe a t viola tions,” a n d tha t W a l trip “ wa s not forthc om ing a bout the de vic e s he ha d in his posse ssion whe n the y we re u ltim a te ly found at h i s hom e .” The distric t c ourt a lso note d t ha t W a ltrip’ s c onduc t wa s a “ se ri o u s b re a c h of the
C ourt’ s trust.” This e xpla na t ion c om

ports with the distric t c o urt’ s dutie s to unde rta ke

ra tiona l a nd m ean ingful c onside ra tion of the re le va nt § 3553(a ) se nte nc ing fa c tors,
sta te spe c ific re a sons for i m posi n g an a

bove -Guide line s se n te nc e , a nd “ sa nc tion prim a rily the de fe nda

nt’ s bre a c h of trust.” U.S.S.G. C h. 7, Pt. A intro. c om m e nt 3(b);

se e M iqbe l , 444 F.3d a

t 1182.
T he d i stric t c ourt d id not c onside r fa c tors tha t it wa s forbidde n from

c onside ring, inc l ud i n g t h e unprove d a lle g a tion tha t W a ltrip posse sse d c hild
pornogra phy

. The d istric t c ourt spe c ific a lly a ske d the gove rnm e nt t o co nfirm tha t

4none of the c ha rge s involve d posse ssion of c hild pornogra p h y , struc k a ll m e ntion of

c hild p ornogra

phy from the title of C ha

rge 2, a nd e x plic itly a c cep t ed t h a t the re wa s

no e vide n c e to support a

c hild pornogra

p hy c h a rge . 2

. The distric t c ourt did not e rr in im posing a 96-m onth te rm of super v i s ed

re le a se . “ W he n a te rm of supe rvise d re le a s e is re v o ke d a nd the d e fe nda nt is re quire d
to se rve a te rm of im

prisonm e nt, t

he c ourt m a

y i ncl u d e a r e quire m e nt tha t the de fe nda n t be pla c e d on a te rm of supe rvise d re l e a se a fte r im prisonm e nt.” 18 U.S.C

. § 3583(h). “ The le ngth of suc h a te rm of supe rvise d re l e a se sha ll n o t e xc e e d the te rm of supe rvise d re l e a se a

uthoriz e d by s ta tute for the offe nse tha t re s ulte d in the origina l
te rm o f supe rvise d re le a se , le ss a ny te rm of im p r i sonm e nt t

ha t wa s im

pose d upon

re voc a tion of supe rvise d re le a s e .” Id. The subtra c tion re quire m e nt in this provision

m a tte rs o nly for purpose s of de te rm ining the m a xim um possible t e rm of s upe rvise d

re le a se . B e c a

u se “ it is ‘ highly unlike ly ’ t h at C ongre ss inte nde d to ba r life tim e
supe rvise d re le a s e u nde r the sta tute ,” we ha ve c o n c lude d tha t § 3583(h)’ s subtra c tion

re quire m e nt a s a

p plie d to a life tim e m a xim um te rm still e q

ua ls a life tim e m a xim

um . Unite d S tate s v
. C row de r , 7 3 8 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th C i r. 2013) (quoting Unite d State s

v . C asse sse , 685 F.3d 186, 191 (2d C ir. 2012)).
A supe rvise d re le a se t e rm of life w a s a uthoriz e d b y sta

tute for W a ltrip’ s unde rly ing offe nse . Se e 18 U.S.C

. § 3583(k). The distric t c ourt im pose d 96 m onths

5of supe rvise d re le a se

— we ll be l ow the m a xim

um te rm . In light of C

row de r , W a ltrip’ s

a rgum e nt tha t a 96-m onth te rm of supe rvise d re le a se e x c e e d s the m a x im um te rm tha t the c ourt m a y

im pose is without m e rit.
AFFIRM E D

.

6