Court Opinion

ID: 9965064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 17:01:33.056877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:41.195041
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 1 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-1884
                                                D.C. No. 1:17-cr-00024-SPW-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

SHAWN MICHAEL WENTZ,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Montana
                    Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Shawn Michael Wentz appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 9-month sentence imposed upon his third revocation of 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).
          Wentz contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it

fails to reflect his substance abuse issues, need for inpatient treatment, lack of

housing, and difficulties finding employment. The district court did not abuse its

discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence at the

high-end of the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable in light of the 18

U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Wentz’s

repeated breaches of the court’s trust and the need to protect the public. See Gall,

552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007)

(purpose of revocation sentence is to sanction the defendant’s breach of the court’s

trust).

          AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   23-1884