NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

P laintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ANDREW ROWLAND ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. No. 23

- 2 068
D.C. No. 3:15

- cr - 00349

- SI

- 23
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon , District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 22 , 202 4 * * Portland , Oregon Before: WALLACH, ** * CHRISTEN, and HURW IT Z , Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

AUG 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Andrew Rowland appeal s a district court order revok ing his supervised
release and sentencing him to twenty

- four months of incarceration with no additional term of supervised release. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a) , we affirm

. 1. Rowland’s argument that the d istrict c ourt impermissibly relied on unproven criminal conduct is groundless. T he d istrict c ourt carefully distinguished the unproven criminal conduct and pending state charges against Rowland from his violations of the conditions of supervised release. Also, t he d istrict c ourt’s sentencing decision made no mention of the unproven criminal conduct asserted by
Rowland

. 2. Rowland’s contention that the d istrict c ourt provided insufficient explanation for its above

- G uideline s sentence is also unsupported by the record. A district court is required to provide specific reasons for exceeding sentencing guidelines

. United States v. Miqbel , 444 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)

. T he

court , however, is not required to cite to specific factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 or even reference the statute ; it need only “provide a sufficient explanation of the sentencing decision to permit meaningful appellate review

. ” United States v. Trujillo , 713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013)

. The district court extensive ly discussed throughout the hearing the relevant history of violations of the conditions of supervised release and Rowland’s related3

substance use and addiction . Further, the district court’s sentencing decision refers
to th is history.
3. Rowland’s argument that the d istrict c ourt’s sentencing decision was substantively unreasonable is also unavailing. Whether the d istrict c ourt’s sentence was substantively reasonable is reviewed for abuse of discretion under the

“ totality of the circumstances. ” United States v. Blinkinsop , 606 F.3d 1110, 111 6 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). “[A]
district court abuses its discretion only if its decision was ‘(1) illogical, (2 ) implausible, or (3) without support in inferences that may be drawn from the
facts in the record.’” United States v. Grant , 727 F.3d 928, 933 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Maier , 646 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2011)).
The d istrict c ourt here explained that Rowland’s extensive history of repeatedly absconding from supervised release, driven by his substance abuse,
even after a prior revocation sentence involving a combination of a shorter term of imprisonment and additional supervised release, demonstrated that he was no longer suitable for community supervision. This history is a cognizable sentencing
factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), documenting the “nature and circumstances of
the offense and the history and characteristics of the de fendant.” The twenty

- four

month duration of the sentence was also the same as the term of supervised release from which Rowland had most recently absconded

. T he sentence and explanation4

was grounded in the record and consideration of the factors prescribed in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), and was not illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.
AFFIRMED.