FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30137
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00202-SMJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GREGORY A. COX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Gregory A. Cox appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the sentence of 12 months and one day 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).
Cox contends that the district court procedurally erred by lengthening his
sentence in order to promote rehabilitation and by failing to explain its reasons for
rejecting his arguments in favor of a within-Guidelines sentence. We review for
plain error, see United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir. 2011), and find
none. Although the court did discuss its hope that Cox would deal with his
substance abuse problem while in custody, it did not impose or lengthen his
sentence to promote rehabilitation. See id. at 281. Moreover, the court adequately
explained the sentence imposed. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992
(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Cox also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it
is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing. The district court
did not abuse its discretion in imposing Cox’s sentence. See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances, including Cox’s repeated use of methamphetamine and failure
to be deterred by a prior revocation sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-30137