United States v. Ricco Brown

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 1 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30311 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00026-DWM v. MEMORANDUM* RICCO LEE BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 23, 2014** Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Ricco Lee Brown appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 55-month term of supervised released imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Brown contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable * 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). sentence because the new supervised release term is greater than necessary to satisfy the goals of sentencing. He argues that the 55-month term is punitive and does not serve the purpose of rehabilitation. We review for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Collins, 684 F.3d 873, 887 (9th Cir. 2012), and find none. The supervised release term is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Brown’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (at a revocation sentencing, the court may sanction the violator for his breach of the court’s trust). AFFIRMED. 2 13-30311