United States v. Duane Wicker , 564 F. App'x 288 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 17 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50262
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:02-cr-00624-L
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DUANE EDWARD WICKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Duane Edward Wicker 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.
Wicker contends that the district court erred procedurally by relying on an
*
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).
improper sentencing consideration, namely, the desire “to avoid more confusion,”
in selecting his sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-
Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects
that the district court relied on proper sentencing factors when determining the
sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
Wicker also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Wicker’s sentence. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the
totality of the circumstances, including Wicker’s extensive criminal history and his
history on supervision. See id.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-50262