FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2014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. 13-50286
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01157-MWF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARK ROBERT STEFFEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mark Robert Steffen appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Steffen contends that the district court erred by relying on improper factors
*
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).
in making its sentencing decision. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), and find none. The record reflects
that the district court properly considered the relevant sentencing factors specified
in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and did not impose the sentence on the basis of any
improper factor. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir.
2006).
Steffen also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Steffen’s sentence. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 24-month sentence is substantively
reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including Steffen’s breach of trust and the need to deter. See id.;
Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1182.
Finally, we reject Steffen’s contention that the district court breached a
promise made at a previous sentencing hearing.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-50286