Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Gregory SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-19
Citations: 487 F. App'x 408
Docket Number: No. 12-30039
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Gregory SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 487
Pages: 408–408

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Gregory SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30039.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 19, 2012.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Carl Andrew Colasurdo, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Suzanne Lee Elliott, Esquire, Law Offices of Suzanne Lee Elliott, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Thomas Gregory Smith appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Smith contends that the district court erred by basing his sentence on the violent nature of his revocation offense and criminal history, rather than on his breach of trust. The record reflects that the district court properly considered the violent nature of Smith's conduct in connection with the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007) (conduct underlying the revocation may be considered by the district court in weighing the severity of the violator's breach of trust). In light of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3583(e) sentencing factors, the 24-month consecutive sentence is substantively reasonable. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.