Court Opinion

ID: 9965119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 18:00:42.427381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:43.100626
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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. 23-2921
                                                D.C. No. 6:19-cr-00563-MC-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
BRYCE WILLIAM McGOWAN,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Oregon
                   Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

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

      Bryce William McGowan appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 9-month sentence imposed upon the revocation of his supervised

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

      McGowan contends that the district court failed to consider his need for

      *
             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).
substance abuse treatment and did not justify its decision to impose imprisonment

instead of residential treatment. We review for plain error, see United States v.

Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there is

none. The record makes clear that the court considered McGowan’s background

and rehabilitative needs, and determined that a carceral term was warranted in light

of McGowan’s poor history on supervision. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d

984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The court selected the sentence to sanction

McGowan’s breach of the court’s trust and not, as McGowan contends, to punish

him. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007).

      McGowan also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

because it fails to give sufficient weight to his recent rehabilitative efforts and need

for continued treatment, improperly punishes him for his behavior during the

revocation proceedings, and because his violations were technical. The district

court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007). The record belies McGowan’s assertion that his behavior before the court

influenced the sentence. The 9-month sentence, imposed after the district court

had twice continued proceedings to allow McGowan time to come into

compliance, is substantively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                    23-2921