Court Opinion

ID: 9899828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 19:01:46.97397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:52.263189
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-50286

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00603-PA-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
PAUL ALLEN DUSENBURY,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted November 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Paul Allen Dusenbury appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon the second revocation of his

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

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

      *
             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).
calculate or properly consider the Guidelines range, (2) failing to explain the

sentence adequately, and (3) failing to consider applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors and instead basing the sentence on improper factors. 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 record reflects that the district court

used the undisputed Guidelines range as the starting point for the sentence,

considered the applicable § 3553(a) factors, and explained that the above-

Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of Dusenbury’s poor history on

supervised release notwithstanding the leniency afforded him. See United States v.

Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the court based

the sentence on only proper sentencing factors, including the need to deter future

violations. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d

1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Finally, the record belies Dusenbury’s claim that

the district court imposed the sentence to promote his rehabilitation, in violation of

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

      Dusenbury also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In

light of the § 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.

                                          2                                       22-50286