United States v. Steven Dock , 588 F. App'x 575 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 12 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-10146
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:97-cr-00410-ROS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    STEVEN RYAN DOCK,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 9, 2014**
    Before:        WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Steven Ryan Dock appeals from the 35-month sentence imposed upon
    revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    ,
    and we affirm.
    Dock contends that the district court erred by imposing sentence on the basis
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    of the need to punish him for his original crime of conviction and his alcoholism.
    We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 
    608 F.3d 1103
    ,
    1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. Although the court did discuss Dock’s
    original crime and alcohol problem, it did so in the context of the section 3583(e)
    sentencing factors, particularly the need to protect the public, and did not impose
    sentence for punitive purposes. See 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 3553
    (a)(2)(C), 3583(e); United
    States v. Simtob, 
    485 F.3d 1058
    , 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007) (at a revocation
    sentencing, district court may consider the history of the violator because section
    3583(e) specifically directs courts to consider the history and characteristics of the
    defendant). Further, because this was Dock’s third revocation offense, the 35-
    month sentence is substantively reasonable. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e); United
    States v. Miqbel, 
    444 F.3d 1173
    , 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (at a revocation sentencing,
    the court may sanction a violator for his breach of the court’s trust).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    14-10146
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-10146

Citation Numbers: 588 F. App'x 575

Filed Date: 12/12/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023