NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30156
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00034-SPW-1
v.
GUS OLDBEAR, III, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Gus Oldbear, III, appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 41-month sentence imposed following revocation of his probation. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Oldbear argues the district court imposed an unreasonable 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).
it based the sentence on the seriousness of his offense conduct, contrary to our
decision in United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2006). That
argument is unavailing because the statute governing probation revocations, unlike
the statute governing revocation of supervised release, permits the district court to
consider any applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, see 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a), and
“give[s] the trial court discretion to sentence a probation violator to the range of
sentences available at the time of the original sentencing,” United States v.
Plunkett, 94 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1996). In light of the § 3553(a) factors and the
totality of the circumstances, the sentence, which is at the bottom of the Guidelines
range applicable at the original sentencing, is reasonable. See United States v.
Peters, 470 F.3d 907, 909 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-30156