FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10287
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:02-cr-01236-ROS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TED ALLEN KOHR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Ted Allen Kohr appeals from the eight-month term of imprisonment and the
24-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).
Kohr contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) failing to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and failing adequately to explain the
sentence imposed; (2) improperly considering the seriousness of the offense; and
(3) improperly considering Kohr’s need for rehabilitation. Because Kohr did not
object to the sentence before the district court, we review for plain error. See
United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The
record reflects that the district court considered the section 3583(e) sentencing
factors and adequately explained the sentence imposed. It further reflects that the
district court took proper account of the seriousness of Kohr’s conduct and did not
impose sentence primarily on this basis. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d
1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Finally, even if the district court plainly erred by
considering Kohr’s need for substance abuse treatment when it imposed his
sentence, see United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 279-82 (9th Cir. 2011), he has
not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different
sentence if the district court had not considered rehabilitation. See United States v.
Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
Kohr also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Kohr’s sentence. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The custodial sentence at the bottom of the
2 13-10287
Guidelines range and the 24-month term of supervised release are substantively
reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances. See id.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-10287