United States v. Duane Wicker

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 13-50262 · 2014-03-17 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Duane Edward WICKER, Defendant-Appellant

Area: other
Panel: Harry Pregerson (author), Edward Leavy, Mary H. Murguia

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 17 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50262 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:02-cr-00624-L v. MEMORANDUM* DUANE EDWARD WICKER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 10, 2014** Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Duane Edward Wicker appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.

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

Wicker contends that the district court erred procedurally by relying on an * 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 consideration, namely, the desire “to avoid more confusion,”

in selecting his sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia- Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court relied on proper sentencing factors when determining the sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).

Wicker also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Wicker’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 Wicker’s extensive criminal history and his history on supervision. See id.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-50262