UNITED STATES v. BRIGHAM (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Clifford Brigham appeals the 36-month and 24-month consecutive sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Brigham first contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on a prohibited sentencing consideration—the need to punish—in imposing the statutory maximum sentence in each case. He also contends that the district court failed to explain the sentences 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 record demonstrates that the district court imposed the sentences after considering Brigham’s history and characteristics and not to punish Brigham. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Moreover, the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing above-Guidelines sentences. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Brigham next contends that the sentences are substantively unreasonable in light of his age and health. 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). Brigham’s sentences are substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Brigham’s history and breach of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1182.

AFFIRMED.