Court Opinion

ID: 9389991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 17:01:10.526246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.977007
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 26 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-30162

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00058-SPW-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ADAM CLARK YOUNG,

                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                            Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Adam Clark Young appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 10-month sentence imposed upon his second revocation of

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

      Young contends that the 10-month sentence is substantively unreasonable

      *
             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).
because (1) Young was facing pending state charges, and (2) the district court

wrongly relied on Young’s “toxic relationship with his wife due to substance

abuse” in imposing the sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Contrary to Young’s contention,

the district court did not rely on the actions of Young’s wife or Young’s

relationship with his wife in determining the sentence. Further, notwithstanding

the possibility that Young would be subject to criminal liability on state drug

charges, the within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the

relevant factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Young’s repeated

breaches of the court’s trust. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United

States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (purpose of a revocation

sentence is to sanction the defendant’s breach of the court’s trust).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   22-30162