FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30083
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00240-JLR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SANXAY XAYADETH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Sanxay Xayadeth appeals from the district court’s judgement and challenges
the 94-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession
of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court held a joint sentencing hearing for the instant criminal
conviction and Xayadeth’s violation of supervised release. At the hearing, the
district court determined that an aggregate 94-month sentence was warranted,
which was composed of a 57-month sentence for the criminal conviction and a
consecutive low-end 37-month sentence for the supervised release violation.
Without objection from Xayadeth, however, the district court elected to impose the
94-month sentence for the criminal conviction and dismiss the supervised release
violation.
Xayadeth contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain adequately the 37-month portion of the sentence that the court said
reflected the supervised release violation. We review for plain error, see United
States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude
there is none. The record reflects that the court sufficiently explained its
sentencing determination. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
Xayadeth next contends that his 94-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Xayadeth’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
2 16-30083
factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Xayadeth’s significant
criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-30083