NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30113
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00009-DLC-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DOUGLAS JAMES GOSNELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Douglas James Gosnell appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gosnell contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
*
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).
consider his mitigating arguments and the 18 U.S.C § 3583(e) factors, and by
failing to provide sufficient explanation for the sentence. We review for plain
error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court
considered Gosnell’s mitigating circumstances, including his medical conditions
and mental health concerns, as well as the relevant § 3583(e) factors, and
adequately explained that the statutory maximum sentence was warranted to
sanction Gosnell’s breach of the court’s trust. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d
984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d
514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court need not specifically address each of the
defendant’s arguments to show that it has considered them).
Gosnell also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of
the § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Gosnell’s
significant 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). Moreover, the record does not
support Gosnell’s contention that the district court impermissibly imposed the
sentence to punish his violation conduct. See Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1063.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-30113