Court Opinion

ID: 9957647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 19:01:10.836714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:34.304237
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 4 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-1060
                                                D.C. No. 6:22-cr-00316-AA-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

JUSTIN WADE SMITH,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Oregon
                     Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Justin Wade Smith appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 11-month sentence imposed upon the second revocation of his supervised

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

      Smith claims that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain

      *
             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).
its reasons for choosing an 11-month sentence over a non-carceral sentence that

would have permitted him to obtain mental health and drug treatment and make

restitution payments to his victims. 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 district court reviewed Smith’s psychological assessment prior to the

revocation hearing. Smith’s treatment needs, as well as his restitution obligations,

were discussed extensively during the hearing. The court explained that a sentence

at the high end of the guidelines range was warranted because Smith’s violations

had impaired probation’s ability to collect restitution and exacerbated his mental

health issues. This explanation is sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d

984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to Smith’s claim, the

court’s sentencing explanation does not reflect any impermissible reliance on 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A).

      Smith also contends that the 11-month sentence is substantively

unreasonable because his supervised release violations were “technical” and his

treatment needs justified a different sentence. In light of the 18 U.S.C. § 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                                    23-1060