Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Alan ROSE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-06
Citations: 465 F. App'x 638
Docket Number: No. 11-30133
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Alan ROSE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 465
Pages: 638–639

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Alan ROSE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-30133.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Jan. 6, 2012.
Stephen H. Gunnels, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eugene, OR, Judith Harper, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Medford, OR, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Tonia Louise Moro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Medford, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
James Alan Rose appeals from the 12-month and one-day sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rose contends that the district court committed procedural error by (1) relying on clearly erroneous factual findings, (2) impermissibly imposing a sentence based on its intent to punish him, and (3) failing to address adequately his medical necessity mitigation argument. The record belies Rose's contention that the district court found that he did not have a medical condition. Further, the record reflects that the district court did not base the sentence primarily on impermissible factors, see United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063-64 (9th Cir.2007), and the district court listened to and considered Rose's mitigation arguments, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the one imposed. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
Rose also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The 12-month and one-day sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, particularly the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence and to sanction Rose for his breach of trust. See Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1063.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.