FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 17, 2012
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 11-1443
v. (D.C. No. 1:10-CR-00623-CMA-1)
(D. Colo.)
JAMES E. LAUGHLIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, PORFILIO, Senior Circuit Judge, and MURPHY,
Circuit Judge.
James E. Laughlin challenges the sixteen-month sentence he received for
violating the terms and conditions of his federal supervised release, claiming that the
within-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court is both procedurally and
substantively unreasonable. Exercising jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1) and
28 U.S.C. § 1291, we summarily affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
First, Mr. Laughlin argues that the district court committed procedural errors
by (1) improperly considering three sentencing factors that Congress expressly
omitted from the supervised release sentencing statute, and (2) inadequately
considering a sentencing factor it was required to consider when imposing a sentence
for a violation of supervised release. However, we agree with the government that
the district court considered appropriate sentencing factors when it determined
Mr. Laughlin’s sentence. See Aplee. Br. at 10-14. We further agree with the
government that Mr. Laughlin has not even come close to satisfying the controlling
plain error standard of review as it relates to his procedural challenges to his
sentence. Id. at 8-10, 15-16.
Second, Mr. Laughlin claims that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court improperly weighed the sentencing factors enumerated in
18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e). But we agree with the government that
Mr. Laughlin has not rebutted the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence is
reasonable. See Aplee. Br. at 18-20. Indeed, as the government has pointed out, in
his opening brief, “Mr. Laughlin advance[d] no discernable facts or legal authority
supporting his assertion that the district court mis-weighed the sentencing factors.”
Id. at 19; see also Aplt. Opening Br. at 21-22.
-2-
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Senior Circuit Judge
-3-