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. ADAM E. JAC OVINO,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50128

D.C . No. 3:11-c r-01731-B EN M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 25, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, GR AB ER , a nd GOULD, C irc uit Judge s. Adam E. Ja c ovino a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c h a lle nge s the 1 2-m o nth se nte nc e im p ose d upon his fourth revoc ation of supervise d re le a se . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED OCT 31 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 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C iting thedistric t c o urt’ s sta te m e nt during a prior re voc ation he aring tha t any future viola

t ion of supe rvise d re l e a se would re sult in a 12-m o nth c ustodia l se nte nc e , Ja c ovino a

rgue s the distric t c ourt should ha ve grante d his m o tion for re c u sa l. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a re c usa l m otion for a

buse of disc re tion. Se eUnite d State s v . Mc Tie rnan , 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th C ir. 2012). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Ja c ovino’ s m o tion be c a use the m otion wa s unsupporte d by e vide nc e that would c a

use “ a re a sona ble pe rson with knowle dge of a ll the fa c t s” to que stion the judge ’ s im pa rtia lity . S e eid. (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d); se ealso United State s v . Range l , 697 F.3d 795, 804 (9th C i r. 2012) (judge ’ s c onduc t during thec ourse of the c a se doe s not provide a ba s is for re c usa l “ e xc e pt in therare st of c i rc um sta nc e s” (inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om i tte d)). Ja c ovino a lso c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt proc e d

ura lly e rre d by

fa iling to c onside r the 18 U.S.C . § 3583(e ) se nte nc ing fa c tors, inste a d ba sing these nte nc e e xc lusive ly

on the prom ise m a de to him by the c ourt a

t the third re voc ation he aring. B e c a

u se Ja c ovino did not ra

ise this obje c tion be fore the distric t c ourt, we re vie w for pla in e rror. Se eUnite d State s v . Vale nc ia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th C ir. 2010). C ontra ry to Ja c ovino’ s a

rgum e nt, the re c ord re fle c ts tha t the distric t c o urt c onside re d the pa rtie s ’ argum e nts a

nd the sta tutory se nte nc ing fa c tors

1 6 - 5 0 1 2 8 2be fore im

posing se nte nc e . The c ourt im pose d se nte nc e on the ba sis of Ja c o vino’ s bre a c h of the c ourt’ s trust, a pe rm issiblese nte nc ing fa c t or. Se eUnite d State s v . Simtob , 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th C ir. 2007) (a t a re v oc ation se nte n c i ng, the c ourt m ay sa nc tion theviola

tor for his bre a c h of trust). AFFIRM E D.

1 6 - 5 0 1 2 8 3