FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50363
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 8:97-cr-00038-PA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Charles Williams appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 18-month sentence 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).
Williams contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
respond to his mitigating argument and by improperly focusing on punishment and
the seriousness of the conduct underlying the revocation. We review for plain
error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court responded
sufficiently to Williams’s mitigating argument and did not base the sentence on
any improper considerations. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007);
United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).
Williams also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 522 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Williams’s
significant breach of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Simtob, 485 F.3d
at 1062-63.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50363