Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony T. FULLER, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Anthony T. Fuller appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 26-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Fuller first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and conclude that there is none. The court thoroughly explained its reasons for the sentence on two occasions. Contrary to Fuller’s suggestion, the court was not required to mention each of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors to show that it had considered them. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Fuller next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He argues that the 26-month sentence is longer than necessary and that the district court imposed the sentence solely to promote respect for the law, an impermissible sentencing factor in a supervised release proceeding. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The record shows that the court did not base the sentence on improper considerations, but rather properly considered Fuller’s poor attitude on supervision, as well as the frequency of his supervised release revocations and the length of his prior sentences. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007) (the violator’s history and the extent of his breach of the court’s trust are appropriate considerations at a revocation sentencing). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. Fuller’s constitutional claims concerning the length of his sentence also fail. See United States v. Williams, 636 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2011) (sentence is unconstitutional if it is “grossly disproportionate” to the crime).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-10352
Decided: July 11, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)