Court Opinion

ID: 9381000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 19:00:46.737164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:29.282047
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-30003

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:21-cr-00130-LK-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ALBERT SAMOA MAIFEA,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Washington
                     Lauren King, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Albert Samoa Maifea appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the four-month sentence imposed upon the third revocation of his

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Maifea contends that the district court erred by listing the 18 U.S.C.

      *
             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).
§ 3553(a)(2)(A) factors among those it was considering in selecting the sentence.

Maifea is correct that § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors may not be considered at a

revocation sentencing, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.

2006), but even assuming the district court erred, any error here was harmless. In

response to defense counsel’s objection, the district court explained that the

prohibited factors did not affect its sentencing decision. The record, which shows

that the sentence was driven by Maifea’s poor performance on supervision,

supports this conclusion. See United States v. Ali, 620 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir.

2010) (sentencing error is harmless if the sentence would not be shorter absent the

alleged error).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                      23-30003