NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50346
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 10CR2417-JAH
v. MEMORANDUM
ROBERT HADLEY HEIZELMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 11, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and WATSON,***
District Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Robert Heizelman (“Appellant”), appeals the district
court’s revocation of his supervised release and resulting sentence. Because
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 Honorable Michael H. Watson, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
1
Appellant has raised a “procedural sentencing error . . . for the first time on
appeal,” we apply plain error review. United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 800
(9th Cir. 2012); see also Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762, 767
(2020) (declining to address “what is sufficient to preserve a claim that a trial court
used improper procedures in arriving at its chosen sentence”); id. (Alito, J.
concurring) (“[A]s we have previously explained, failing to object at all to a
procedural [sentencing] error . . . will subject a procedural challenge to plain-error
review.”). Plain error is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial
rights. United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted). “If these three conditions are met, the
court may then exercise its discretion to grant relief if the error seriously affects the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. Finding no
plain error, we affirm.
1. The district court provided sufficient reasoning for imposing its
Guideline-range sentence and did not disregard Appellant’s arguments. A “court
must explain [the sentence] sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review.”
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). A district
court “need not tick off each of the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors to show that it
has considered them.” Id.
2
Here, the district court identified that the admitted violations were Grade A
violations, acknowledged Appellant’s criminal history category of III, and
calculated the corresponding Guideline range to be 18–24 months. It then
sentenced Appellant to a within-guideline-range sentence of 20 months. See
United States v. Vasquez-Perez, 742 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[A] sentence
within the Guidelines range often needs little explanation, and a sufficient
explanation can sometimes be inferred from the record as a whole.”). The district
court also considered and incorporated Appellant’s sentencing requests and
included mental health treatment and time at a half-way house. The district court
therefore did not plainly err in imposing the sentence.
2. We do not address Appellant’s novel jurisdictional argument because, even
accepting Appellant’s argument that the district court did not have jurisdiction over
two of the alleged violations, any error did not seriously affect the fairness or
integrity of the sentence. See Hammons, 558 F.3d at 1103. Appellant admitted to
other conduct that established two Grade A violations, either of which would have
been sufficient to qualify Appellant for a Guideline range of 18 to 24 months. See
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). Furthermore, the district court could consider Appellant’s
“continued pattern of unlawful behavior,” a permissible consideration under 18
U.S.C. § 3583. United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
3