Court Opinion

ID: 9891580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 22:00:42.301791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:43:26.673613
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-50021

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00472-JAK-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *
IAN BRADLEY GALLAHER,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Ian Bradley Gallaher appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 2-month term of imprisonment and 12-month term of home

detention imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      As an initial matter, we do not decide whether Gallaher is correct that he

received an above-Guidelines sentence because it does not affect the outcome.

      Gallaher claims that the district court procedurally erred by (1) failing to

adequately explain the terms of imprisonments and home detention, (2) relying on

clearly erroneous facts regarding his participation in mental health treatment, and

(3) improperly basing the sentence on the seriousness of his original offense and

the need for treatment. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-

Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none.

The district court adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty,

520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Even assuming the court’s imposition

of home detention was subject to enhanced procedural requirements, Gallaher has

not shown that any alleged error in the court’s explanation affected his substantial

rights. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2013).

The district court’s remarks regarding Gallaher’s participation in mental health

treatment, moreover, were not clearly erroneous, see id. at 1103, and its references

to Gallaher’s criminal history were not improper, see United States v. Simtob, 485

F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Finally, the record belies Gallaher’s claim

that the district court imposed the sentence in order to promote his rehabilitation, in

violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011).

      Gallaher lastly contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In

                                          2                                    23-50021
light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the

circumstances, however, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                   23-50021