United States v. William Slattery

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 02 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50335 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:04-cr-00950-DDP v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM SLATTERY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. William Slattery appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his third 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). Slattery contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court overstated the seriousness of the violation and failed to credit his attempts at rehabilitation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Slattery’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) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Slattery’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust and the need to protect the public. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, contrary to Slattery’s contention, the district court did not base the sentence on any clearly erroneous fact. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). AFFIRMED. 2 15-50335