FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 09 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30036
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:01-cr-00107-EJL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROLAND BOYD MAXFIELD, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Roland Boyd Maxfield, III, appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 10-month custodial sentence and 26-month term of supervised
release 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. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Maxfield contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain adequately the sentence imposed. We review for plain error, see United
States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none.
Although the district court did not explicitly reject the arguments raised by
Maxfield, the record reflects that it considered those arguments along with the 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors, and adequately explained the sentence imposed. See
United States v. Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court has
no obligation to address defendant’s arguments on the record where it is clear from
the context that the arguments were heard); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,
992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Maxfield also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Maxfield’s sentence. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 10-month custodial sentence at
the top of the Guidelines range, followed by 26 months of supervised release, is
substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) factors and the totality of
the circumstances. See id.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-30036