Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy Arlan MAINWARING, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-14
Citations: 682 F. App'x 549
Docket Number: No. 16-30084
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy Arlan MAINWARING, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 682
Pages: 549–550

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy Arlan MAINWARING, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30084
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2017
Filed March 14, 2017
Amy Potter, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eugene, OR, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Bear Wilner-Nugent, Esquire, Attorney, Bear Wilner-Nugent, Counselor & Attorney at Law LLC, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, 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
Randy Arlan Mainwaring appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 28-month sentence imposed upon his third revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Mainwaring contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Mainwaring's sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Mainwaring's repeated breaches of the court's trust and his unsuitability for supervised release. 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.