UNITED STATES v. HARRIS (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Adam Michael Harris appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 13-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Harris contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately. He also argues that the court's remarks concerning specific deterrence and the need to keep him away from drugs reflect that the court made clearly erroneous findings that the instant revocation involved drug use and new crimes. 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 adequately explained why the above-Guidelines sentence was warranted, citing Harris’s long record of resistance to supervision and breaches of the court’s trust, as documented in four prior hearings stemming from violations of his supervisory conditions. Furthermore, the record does not support Harris’s argument that the court misunderstood the nature of his supervised release violations. In light of Harris's history, the court reasonably observed that a prison term would have the salutary effect of keeping Harris away from alcohol and drugs for a period of time. In addition, it did not plainly err by invoking the need for deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(B), 3583(e); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181 & n.19 (9th Cir. 2006).

Harris also contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Harris’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. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Harris’s extensive record of violating his conditions of supervised release. See Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1182 (defendant’s breach of the court’s trust is an appropriate sentencing consideration at a revocation sentencing).

AFFIRMED.