NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30127
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00112-EJL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CHELSEA D. EDWARDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 8, 2017***
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Chelsea D. Edwards 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Rosanna Malouf Peterson, United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Edwards contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain the sentence adequately, justify its upward variance from the Guidelines
range, and respond to her mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see
United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and hold that there is
none. The record reflects that the district court considered Edwards’s arguments
for a mid-range sentence and sufficiently explained its reasons for the above-
Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008)
(en banc).
Edwards next claims that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. 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 Edwards’s extensive criminal history and her repeated breaches of the
court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058,
1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-30127