UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey SOUTHERN, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided: December 18, 2019
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Alexis Klempel, Special Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Nicole Owens, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender Services of Idaho, Boise, ID, William Miles Pope, FPDWA - Federal Public Defender's Office (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jeffrey Southern appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Southern contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately and by relying on impermissible sentencing factors and a misunderstanding of his criminal history. 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 discussed Southern's history and characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the violations, and the need for deterrence, which reflected its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and provided adequate explanation for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to Southern's claim, the district court did not impose the sentence to promote his rehabilitation. See Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 334, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011) (“A court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison.”). Finally, any factual error by the district court pertaining to Southern's criminal history did not affect the sentence selected. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
Southern also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. The within-guidelines sentence, six months of which was ordered to run concurrently to his state sentence, is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See id.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.