UNITED STATES v. KANE (2018)

MEMORANDUM *

Shannon Kane appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 14-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Kane contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately and relying on the erroneous finding that Kane trafficked methamphetamine. 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 district court explicitly addressed Kane’s argument concerning his “people pleasing” behavior and adequately explained why a high-end sentence was warranted. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Furthermore, the district court did not find that Kane had trafficked methamphetamine. Instead, the court observed that Kane had chosen to accommodate someone who wanted him to traffic methamphetamine, a finding that was supported by the record.

Kane also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of mitigating circumstances in this case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Kane’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of Kane’s violations. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.