Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-19
Citations: 619 F. App'x 669
Docket Number: No. 14-50363
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 669–670

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50363.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
Filed Oct. 19, 2015.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Dinah Toüny, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plain-' tiff-Appellee.
Gia Kim, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, 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
Charles Williams appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Williams contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to respond to his mitigating argument and by improperly focusing on punishment and the seriousness of the conduct underlying the revocation. 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 district court responded sufficiently to Williams's mitigating argument and did not base the sentence on any improper considerations. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.2007).
Williams also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court gave insufficient weight to 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 Williams's significant breach of the court's trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; 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.