Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nigel Graham ERNST, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-21
Citations: 667 F. App'x 186
Docket Number: No. 15-30290
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nigel Graham ERNST, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 186–186

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nigel Graham ERNST, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30290
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 21, 2016
Timothy John Racicot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Andrew J. Nelson, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana (Missoula), Missou-la, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Nigel Graham Ernst appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the aggregate 6-month sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Ernst contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court placed undue emphasis on uncharged conduct to the exclusion of mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Ernst's breach of the court's trust within two months of being placed on supervised release. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Xinidakis, 598 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) ("A district court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences after revocation of multiple concurrent terms of supervised release.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.