Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Vince BOTZON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-16
Citations: 537 F. App'x 776
Docket Number: No. 12-30351
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Vince BOTZON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 537
Pages: 776–777

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Vince BOTZON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30351.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
Filed Aug. 16, 2013.
Joseph Hilary Harrington, Assistant U.S., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Syovata Edari, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWA-Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, 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
Brian Vince Botzon appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 14-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Botzon contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Botzon's sentence. 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 Botzon's criminal history, his breach of the court's trust, and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
To the extent that Botzon contends that the district court placed improper weight on his original armed bank robbery offense, the record reflects that the court properly considered that offense as part of his criminal history, and did not impermissibly punish Botzon for the conduct related to his revocation offenses. See Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1062-63.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.