NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10467
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00020-GEB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KONSTANTY BOYES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Konstanty Boyes appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 24-month sentence imposed upon his third revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Boyes contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his
*
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).
circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
above-Guidelines sentence, which is substantively reasonable in light of the 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Boyes also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain the sentence adequately. He points out that the district court failed to state
its reasons for the above-Guidelines sentence in a written statement of reasons form,
as required by section 3553(c)(2). The record reflects that the district court
sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the sentence when it orally
pronounced the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc). Because those reasons are on the record and we have not
determined that the sentence is too high, we may affirm the sentence
notwithstanding the lack of a statement of reasons form. See United States v.
Daychild, 357 F.3d 1082, 1108 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f).
Moreover, contrary to Boyes’s contention, the record reflects that the court
considered only proper sentencing factors. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d
1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-10467