United States v. Kimberly Crawford

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10205 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00547-RLH v. MEMORANDUM* KIMBERLY CRAWFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 21, 2015** Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Kimberly Crawford appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 11-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Crawford contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to * 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). explain adequately its reasons for rejecting her sentencing arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered Crawford’s arguments and sufficiently explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Crawford next contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of her history of addiction and her rehabilitative efforts. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Crawford’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Crawford’s multiple violations of supervised release and the need to afford adequate deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 14-10205