NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10490
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cr-50128-JAT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES MAURICE BELGARDE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Charles Maurice Belgarde appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed
upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Belgarde contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of
*
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).
the long period of time between his violation conduct and sentencing, and other
mitigating circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing Belgarde’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
the speed with which Belgarde violated his supervised release and the need to
protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Garrett, 253
F.3d 443, 449-50 (9th Cir. 2001) (court may postpone adjudication of a supervised
release violation until a defendant is released from state custody).
In an untimely pro se reply brief, Belgarde also argues that the district court
imposed the sentence to punish his violation conduct and previous criminal acts.
Even if this argument were properly before the court, it would fail because it is not
supported by the record.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-10490