FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50049
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-cr-02570-BTM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CHRISTOPHER BOYD CUTCLIFF,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011 **
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Boyd Cutcliff appeals from the 12-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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
Cutcliff contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider the statutory sentencing factors, and by failing to consider his mitigating
arguments. The court did not err, as the record reflects that the district court
considered the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and Cutcliff’s
arguments in mitigation, but found the circumstances insufficient to warrant a
sentence lower than the bottom of the Guidelines range. See United States v.
Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 2009).
Cutcliff also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In
light of the totality of the circumstances and the relevant section 3553(a)
sentencing factors, the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Finally, Cutcliff contends that the supervised release revocation procedure
under 18 U.S.C. § 3583 violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As
Cutcliff concedes, the claim is foreclosed by United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d
1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-50049