Court Opinion

ID: 9366674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 18:01:08.073178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.227971
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 27 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-30061

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00212-RCT-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CHRISTIAN JAMES PALMER,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Idaho
                  Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judge, Presiding**

                           Submitted January 18, 2023***

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Christian James Palmer appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon 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.
      **
             Richard C. Tallman, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting
by designation.
      ***
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Palmer first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

explain adequately its rationale for imposing the 24-month sentence, which was

above both the Guidelines range and the parties’ sentencing recommendations. 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 the

district court imposed the statutory maximum sentence in light of Palmer’s

criminal history, and his repeated violations of the terms of his supervised release

despite the leniency afforded him at his original sentencing and over the course of

his supervised release term. Moreover, Palmer has not shown a reasonable

probability that he would have received a lower sentence had the district court said

more. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

      Palmer also argues that the district court improperly imposed the sentence to

promote his rehabilitation. The district court, however, expressly disclaimed any

reliance on rehabilitation. Further, the record shows that the court did not impose a

term of imprisonment to promote Palmer’s rehabilitation or select a 24-month

sentence because of the treatment options a sentence of that length would afford.

Rather, after Palmer acknowledged in his allocution his substance abuse and

mental health issues and explained that he needed more “structure,” the court

properly explored the possible rehabilitative options. See Tapia v. United States,

564 U.S. 319, 334 (2011).

                                          2                                    22-30061
      Palmer next argues that, because the district court did not identify the

sentencing factors upon which it was relying, the record is unclear as to whether

the court relied on any prohibited 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See

United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a

district court may not consider at a revocation sentencing any § 3553(a) factor

omitted from § 3583(e)). However, we presume that judges know the law, see

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and nothing in

the record indicates that the court relied on impermissible factors.

      Finally, Palmer argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In

light of the totality of the circumstances and the § 3583(e) sentencing factors, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the above-Guidelines

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

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                      22-30061