Court Opinion

ID: 9389989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 17:01:09.807262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.948494
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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. 22-30129

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00024-WFN-1

 v.

ANTHONY J. MATHIAS,                             MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Washington
                 Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 17, 2023**

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

      Anthony J. Mathias appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon the fourth revocation of his

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

      Mathias contends that the 24-month, statutory maximum sentence is

      *
             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).
substantively unreasonable because it is significantly above his Guidelines range

and his violations were driven by his drug addiction. 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 applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Mathias’s

repeated poor performance on supervision and the need to protect the public. See

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); see also Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Gutierrez-

Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various

factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

       AFFIRMED.

                                             2                                  22-30129