United States v. Donald Warwick
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Wayne WARWICK, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Mary M. Schroeder (author), Richard A. Paez, Susan Graber
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50611 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00143-JAH v. MEMORANDUM * DONALD WAYNE WARWICK, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 14, 2013 ** Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Donald Wayne Warwick appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the ten-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Warwick contends that the district court erred procedurally by considering * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). improper sentencing factors and by failing to address his mitigation arguments.
We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record shows that the district court relied on proper sentencing factors and adequately considered Warwick’s arguments. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 999-1000 (9th Cir.
2008) (except in unusual or complex cases, where the record reflects that the district court considered the defendant’s arguments, the court need not provide extensive explanation for a within-Guidelines sentence).
Warwick further contends that the ten-month revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Warwick’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Warwick’s prior supervised release violation and breach of the court’s trust. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-50611