Court Opinion

ID: 9901959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 19:00:48.596985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.643910
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-679
                                                D.C. No.
             Plaintiff - Appellee,              2:17-cr-00060-RMP-1
                                                Eastern District of Washington,
 v.
                                                Spokane
DASHANE WARREN VIELLE,                          MEMORANDUM*

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Washington
                Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted November 14, 2023**

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

      Dashane Warren Vielle appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 14-month term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of his

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

      Vielle contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In his view,

      *
             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).
(1) the district court should not have imposed a sentence at the high end of the

Guidelines range because his supervised release violations were “technical” and

were driven by his drug withdrawal symptoms, (2) the Sentencing Guidelines are

too punitive and result in overincarceration, and (3) he had no prior violent federal

offenses. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable

in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the

circumstances, including Vielle’s state criminal record and history on federal

supervision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                       23-679