NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30003
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 9:18-cr-00031-DLC-3
v.
LEONARD FRANK CATTERLIN, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 14, 2020**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Leonard Frank Catterlin appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the eight-month sentence imposed upon his second revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Catterlin contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because he
*
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).
needs community-based treatment rather than incarceration. The district court did
not abuse its discretion in imposing the within-Guidelines sentence. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in
light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances,
including, as the district court highlighted, Catterlin’s repeated violations of
supervised release. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d
1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). To the extent Catterlin contends that the court
impermissibly imposed the sentence to punish him, the record reflects that the
district court relied on only proper sentencing factors. See Simtob, 485 F.3d at
1062.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-30003