Court Opinion

ID: 9965069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 17:01:36.247149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:41.399534
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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. 23-1598
                                                D.C. No.
             Plaintiff - Appellee,              2:14-cr-00119-DGC-1
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES WILLIAM BUNNELL II, AKA
Charles Bunnell II,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

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

      Charles William Bunnell II appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 36-month sentence imposed upon the second 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), and we therefore deny
Bunnell’s request for oral argument.
      Bunnell contends the district court erred by considering the seriousness of

his underlying offense, and by relying on inaccurate, prejudicial facts contained in

a report. We need not resolve the parties’ dispute as to the standard of review that

applies to these claims because we conclude that the court did not err under any

standard.

      The record shows that the district court did not consider any impermissible

factors. Rather, its discussion of the underlying offense was part of its proper

consideration of Bunnell’s overall criminal history and poor performance on

supervised release. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.

2007). Moreover, Bunnell’s speculation that the district court may have relied on

erroneous facts in a report is insufficient to undermine the sentence. See United

States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 937 (9th Cir. 2009) (defendant must

show his sentence “was demonstrably based on false or unreliable information”).

      Finally, we disagree with Bunnell’s assertion that this case must be

remanded for the district court to clarify the basis for the sentence. The record

makes clear the court relied only on permissible sentencing factors and reasonably

determined that a 36-month sentence was warranted to protect the public, provide

deterrence, and sanction Bunnell’s breach of the court’s trust. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e); Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1062-63.

      AFFIRMED.

                                        2                                    23-1598