gno.law

United States v. Christopher Cutcliff

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-50049 · 2011-10-27 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Boyd CUTCLIFF, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Stephen S. Trott (author), Gould, Johnnie B. Rawlinson

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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2011

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. 11-50049 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-cr-02570-BTM v. MEMORANDUM * CHRISTOPHER BOYD CUTCLIFF, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2011 ** Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Christopher Boyd Cutcliff appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

* 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. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2). Cutcliff contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the statutory sentencing factors, and by failing to consider his mitigating arguments. The court did not err, as the record reflects that the district court considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and Cutcliff’s arguments in mitigation, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the bottom of the Guidelines range. See United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 2009).

Cutcliff also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the relevant section 3553(a)

sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Finally, Cutcliff contends that the supervised release revocation procedure under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As Cutcliff concedes, the claim is foreclosed by United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-50049

Cites, in this corpus