UNITED STATES v. TAKATA (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Andy K. Takata appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon his third revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Takata contends that the district court erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately. 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 record reflects that the district court sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines sentence, including Takata’s repeated violations and his unsuitability for supervised release. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to Takata’s contention, the record reflects that the district court relied on only proper sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (the seriousness of underlying offense “may be considered to a lesser degree as part of the criminal history of the violator”).

Takata also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. 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 sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

Takata’s motion to take judicial notice of state court records is granted.

AFFIRMED.