Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Seth Anthony JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-20
Citations: 703 F. App'x 548
Docket Number: No. 16-30307
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Seth Anthony JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 703
Pages: 548–549

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Seth Anthony JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30307
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 15, 2017
Filed November 20, 2017
Katherine Lee Horwitz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Thomas Monaghan, Chief Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender Services of Idaho, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, 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
Seth Anthony Johnson appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the sentence of 12 months and one day imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Johnson contends that his due process rights were violated by the district court's consideration of his probation officer's unreliable hearsay testimony at sentencing concerning his alleged possession of child pornography in 2013. Contrary to Johnson's claim, his probation officer did not testify that Johnson possessed child pornography. Rather, he accurately reported that, in a prior revocation proceeding, Johnson was alleged to have been in possession of child pornography after officers viewed "suspected" child pornography on his cell phone. The probation officer also made clear that the possession allegation was dismissed. Even assuming these statements contained hearsay, Johnson has not shown that the statements were false or unreliable and the district court did not violate Johnson's due process rights by considering them. See United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2009).
Johnson also argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court relied too heavily on his original crime in imposing it. The 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 record does not support Johnson's contention that the district court overemphasized his original crime, and the within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Johnson's multiple breaches of the court's trust and the threat he poses to the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED,
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.