Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pono Nakaneokekaik PAU, a.k.a. Pono Pau, 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 183
Docket Number: No. 15-50417
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pono Nakaneokekaik PAU, a.k.a. Pono Pau, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 183–183

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pono Nakaneokekaik PAU, a.k.a. Pono Pau, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50417
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 21, 2016
William Neville Chemnick, U.S. Attorney, Janet Cabral, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ellis M. Johnston, III, Esquire, Trial Attorney, San Diego, CA, 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
Pono Nakaneokekaik Pau appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon his second revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pau contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, and instead imposing a predetermined sentence based on a promise it made at an earlier sentencing hearing. We reject this contention. The record reflects that the court considered the relevant section 3583(e) sentencing factors, as well as the parties' sentencing positions, prior to imposing sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, while the court referenced the "promise" it made at the earlier sentencing hearing, it did not impose sentence on that basis. To the contrary, the court stated that it would "cut [Pau] a little slack" and not impose the sentence it "promised" at the first sentencing hearing.
Pau also contends that the district court procedurally erred by considering the need to punish the conduct underlying his revocation, an impermissible sentencing factor. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered only permissible sentencing factors and imposed the sentence in order to sanction Pau's breach of the court's trust. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.