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. M ATHEW

HOVIOUS, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-10229

D.C . No. 3:17-c r-00098-LR

H-VPC -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 11, 2019 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , B E A, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s.

M a the w Hovious (“ Hovious” ) a ppe a ls from his se nte nc e of 96 m onths in prison from

a c onvic tion for ba

nk robbe ry , in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2113(a ),



# F IL ED SEP 13 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).following his ope n guilty ple a , on the ba sis tha

t the se nte n c e wa s substa

ntive ly
unre a s ona

ble . Hovious a lso a sks the c ourt to va c a te two c onditions of supe rvise d
re le a se : a wa rrantle ss se arc h c ondition a nd a n e m ploy m e nt re stric tion c ondition that would pre v e nt him

from de a ling with mone y . On Oc tobe r 23, 2017, Hovious e nte re d a US B a n k bra nc h a nd ha nde d a te lle r a thre a t e ning notec la i m ing he ha d a gun a nd a n a c c om plic e and de m anding
sm a ll de nom ination bills. The te lle r c olle c te d c a sh from he r dra we r a nd ha nde d it to him in a

n am ount la

te r de te rm ine d to be $2,600, a nd Hovious le ft the ba

n k. Hovious la

te r told inve stiga

tors tha t he did not ha

ve e i the r a

gun or a n a c c o m plic e . Hovious wa s a

rre ste d on Oc tobe r 25, 2017. On M arc h 6, 2018, Hovious ple a de d guilty in a n ope n ple a

to ba nk robbe ry

in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2113(a ). Prior to se nte nc ing, the Unite d State s Probation Offic e pre pa re d a pre se nte nc e re port, whic h c orre c tly

c a lc u late d his guide l ine range a s 46-57 m o n ths in prison but re c om

m e nde d a n upwa rd va rianc e to 96 m onths. At sente n c ing, Hovious
argue d for a downwa rd va rian c e to 30 m o nths, pre se nte d e vide nc e of c h ildhood
a buse a nd a n e xpe rt witne s s to the e ffe c ts of long pe riods in solita ry c onfine m e nt,
and obje c te d to the re c o m m e ndation of a

n upwa rd va rianc e . He did not obje c t to
any of the probation c o nditions. The distric t c ourt se nte nc e d Hovious to 96 m onths in prison.
2Hovious a rgue s his se nte nc e is substa ntive ly unre a sona

b le be c a use it va rie s upwa rd from the guide l i ne range e ve n though the gove rnm e nt a

nd Hovious a

rgue d for a s e nte nc e within or be low the guide line ran ge , a n d be c a use the distric t c ourt
re je c te d Hovious’ s m itiga

tion e vide nc e of his tra

um a tic c hildhood a

n d pe riods in solita ry c onfine m e nt a

n d ove re m pha siz e d his “ non-viole nt sta le prior c onvic tions.” This c ourt re vie ws the substa ntive re a sona

ble ne ss of a

se nte nc e for a

b use of disc re tion. Unite d State

s v . Grant , 727 F.3d 928, 933 (9th C i r. 2013) (c iting Unite d State s v . Blink insop , 606 F.3d. 1110, 1116 (9th C ir. 2010)). The c o urt c o nside rs the

“ tota l ity of the c irc um sta

nc e s,” and re c ogniz e s “ the se nte nc ing judgeis in a supe rior position to find fa c ts a nd judge the ir im

port unde r § 3553(a) in the individual c a se .” Id . (quoting Blink insop , 606 F.3d a

t 1116). Thedistric t

c o urt
a buse d its disc re tion only

if the se nte nc e im

pose d wa s “ (1) illogic a l, (2) im pla usible , or (3) without support in infe re nc e s tha t m ay be drawn from the fa c ts in the re c ord.” Id . (quoting U nite d State

s v . Maie r , 646 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc )). Hovious’ s se n t e nc e of 96 m onths is not substa n tive ly unre a sona

ble m e re ly be c a use it va rie s a bove the guide line s a

nd a dopts the re c om

m e ndat ion in the pre s e nte nc e re p ort rathe r tha n the re c o m

m e ndations of thepa

rtie s. “ A de fe nda

nt ha s no right to a Guide l i ne s se nte nc e .” Unite d State s v . Hilge rs , 560 F.3d 944, 947
3(9th C ir. 2009) (c iting U nite d State

s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th C i r. 2008) (e n ba nc )). “ [A] n a

ppe a ls c ourt m ay

not pre sum e tha

t a n out-of-Guide line s se nte nc e is unre a sona

ble .” Id . (c iting C

arty , 520 F.3d a

t 994). Hovious a

rgue s the distric t c ourt dismi sse d or disre ga rde d his m itiga

tion
e vide nc e an d e xpe rt witne ss to foc us on his olde r c o nvic tions. Thetra

nsc ript shows the d istric t c o urt a c k

nowle dge d Hovious’ s se nte nc ing m e m oran dum , the pre s e nte nc e re p ort-whic h the distric t c ourt a dopte d, a nd he ard from

Hovious’ s e xpe rt witne ss, c ounse l ’ s argum e nt, c ha ra c te r witne ss, a

nd from Hovious. Further, the d istric t c o urt disc usse d the inform a tion re c e ive d, a n d e xpla ine d the we ight it gave the inform ation a

nd re a sons for a gre e m e nt or disa gre e m e n t with infe re nc e s and c onc l usions to be

drawn from

the inform a tion be fore it. The distric t c ourt did not dism iss the e xpe rt witne ss, but sta t e d it c o nside re d his te stim ony

and e xp la ine d tha

t it ga ve his te stim ony le s s we ight be c a use the doc tor ha d not e ithe r e xam ine d Hovious or the re c ord of why

Hovious ha d be e n pla c e d in solita

ry c onfine m e nt nine tim e s in e i ght y e ars. The distric t c ourt did not

4foc u s only

on Hovious’ s prior, olde r c onvic tions, 1 but c onside re d the § 3553(a ) fa c t ors, inc luding Hovious’ s pe rsona l history and c ha ra c te ristic s, the ne e d for de te rre nc e and to prote c t

the public , a

nd to prom ote re spe c t

for the la w. The distric t
c ourt disc usse d

e x te nsive ly Hovious’ s ba c kground, theoffe nse , a nd the re a s ons for the s e nte n c e im

pose d. The distric t

c o urt note d Hovious’ s le ngthy c rim ina l history
m ostly pre d a ting his tim

e in solita ry c onfine m e nt, tha

t he ha d e volve d from

nonviole nt offe nse s to thre a te ning the ba nk te lle r tha

t he ha d a gun, a nd tha t he ha d
c om m itte d this la st offe nse a fte r re pe a te d inc a rc e ra tions, shortly a fte r his re le a se , on proba tion, a nd while he ha d a

job, a ve h ic le , a

nd a pla c e to live . The distric t
c ourt note d Hovious re c e ive d little inc arc e ra tion tim e for offe n se s e arlie r in life
and ha d not “ le arne d anything from his c onvic tions, a

rre sts, or se nte nc e s[,] or probat ions . . . up to tha

t pe riod of tim e .” Furthe r the distric t c o urt re c om

m e nde d that Ne va da a uthoritie s c onside r m aking a ny se nte nc e Ne va da

m ay im pose whe n re voking Hovious’ s pa

role c o nc urre nt with the

fe de ra l se nte n c e be c a

u se fe de ra l

1 Hovious ha d 16 prior c o nvic tions from 1998 to 2006 for se c ond de gre e burgla ry , driving under the influe nc e and ope n c onta ine r/ drinking a lc ohol in a ve hic le , the ft, unde r the influe nc e of a c ontrolle d substa

nc e , atte m

pt to obtain m one y unde r fa lse pre te nse s, pe tty the ft with priors, e sc a

pe from ja il whilec ha

rge d with a fe lony , pe tty

the ft with prior jail, gra

nd the ft of pe rsona l prope rty , unde r the influe n c e of a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e , unde r the influe nc e of c ontrolle d substa nc e s and pa role viola tions, se c ond de gre e burgla ry , de frauding a

n innke e p e r, and two c ounts of burgla

ry . 5prisons ha

ve a gre a te r a bility to “ tre at som e one like M r. Hovious” tha n sta te sy ste m s. A va rianc e of 39 m onths ove r the top of theguide line s range of 57 m onths is
a la rge va rian c e . Hilge r

s , 560 F.3d a

t 948. A m a

jor de pa rture re quire s “ a

m ore signific ant justific a t ion tha n a m inor one .” Gall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). Give n the distric t c ourt’ s re vie w of a ll the fa c tors, inc luding thefa c t tha t Hovious’ s c rim ina l history wa s unde rre pre s e nte d in the guide line ’ s c a lc ulation, the
c ourt c annot sa

y tha t a se nte nc e 39 m onths ove r the guide line s wa s unre a sona ble
. Hilge r s , 560 F.3d a

t 948 (a ffirm ing a distric t c ourt se nte nc e for m ortga ge fraud “ 3 y e ars longe r tha

n the top of theGuide line s ra n ge ” of 18 m onths whe re , am o ng othe r fa c tors, the guide line s ina de quate ly re fle c te d the pote ntia l loss to vic tim s). The distric t c ourt suffic i e ntly supporte d its c onc lusion tha t a n a bove guide line s se nte nc e wa s ne c e ssa

ry with a na ly sis of Hovious’ s pa st c rim i na lity , la c k of
re sponse to prior se nte nc e s, pe rsona l history , a nd the nature and c i rc um sta nc e s of the c rim e . Id . (de te rm ining thedistric t c ourt supporte d its a

bove guide line s se nte nc e with findings a s to the de fe nda nt’ s “ p a st c rim i na lity , his la c k of re sponse to prior se nte nc e s, his pe rsona l c ha ra c te ristic s a

nd his la c k of re m orse ” ). Hovious’ s se nte nc e of 96 m onths in prison is a ffirm e d.

6Hovious a lso a ppe a ls im p osition of Spe c ia l C ondition num be r 1, whic h pe rm its wa

rrantle ss se a

rc he s of Hovious, his re side n c e , and prope rty , by the probat ion offic e r or an a

ut horiz e d pe rson unde r the probation offic e r’ s supe rvision. Hovious did not obje c t to this spe c ia l c o ndition in the distric t c ourt, so thec ourt’ s re vie w is limi te d to pla i n e rror. Blink insop , 606 F.3d a

t 1118. “ Pla i n e rror is (1)
e rror, (2) that is pla in a

nd (3) a ffe c ts ‘ substa

ntia l rights,’ ” and “ (4) se riously a ffe c ts the fa irne ss, inte grity

or public re puta

tion of judic ia l proc e e dings.” Unite d State s v . Barsumy an , 517 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting Unite d State s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732–34 (1993)); se e also Blink insop , 606 F.3d a

t 1114 n.2. Hovious a

rgue s the distric t c ourt e rre d by fa i ling to m ake an

individualiz e d
a sse ssm e nt on there c ord with re c ord e vide nc e tha t Spe c ia l C o ndition num

be r 1 is
ne c e ssa ry to furthe r the sta

tutory goa ls of supe rvision. Hovious a rgue s this
c ondition a ffe c ts his substa ntia l rights by

“ strip[ping] him

of a l l priva c y

and libe rty inte re s ts.” The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in im posing this spe c ia l c ondition. The distric t c o urt wa s not re quire d to m ake an individualiz e d a sse ssm e nt, a

n d Be tts doe s not hold tha

t it is re quire d. Unite d State s v . Be t ts , 511 F.3d 872, 876 (9th C ir. 2007). R a the r Be tts uphe ld a wa rra ntle ss se arc h

c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se unde r a m ore stringe nt a

buse of disc re tion sta

nda rd a s prote c ting thepublic and
7furthe ring the goa ls of post re le a se supe rvision. Id . Furthe r, this wa rra ntle ss se arc h
c ondition doe s not a ffe c t a substa ntia l right a s did the c ondition in the c a se Hovious c ite s, Unite d State s v . W olf C hild, 699 F.3d 1082 (9th C ir. 2007), whic h prohibite d a

pa re nt from c o nta c ting his m inor c hild, id. at 1096–97. Se e Unite d State s v . C e rv ante s , 859 F.3d 1175, 1184 (9th C ir. 2017) (upholding a wa rra ntle ss se arc h c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se whe re de fe nda

n t ha d a long c rim ina l history
and prior viola

tions of supervision). The pa rtie s a gre e tha

t Spe c ia l C ondition num

be r 9, a n e m p loy m e nt
re stric tion tha

t Hovious not e

nga ge in work tha

t would re quire him

to ha ndle
m one y , is not ne c e s sa

ry to prote c t the public an d should beva c a te d. This c a se is
re m ande d for e lim ination of Spe c ia l C ondition num be r 9. AFFIRM E D IN PART AND RE M ANDE D IN PART .

8