United States v. Heath Roberson ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 8 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 19-10393
19-10394
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 1:17-cr-00211-LJO-SKO-1
v. 1:13-cr-00342-LJO-BAM-2
HEATH LEE ROBERSON,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Heath Lee Roberson appeals from the district
court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed upon revocation
of probation and the 12-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Roberson first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain the sentences adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there is
none. The record reflects that the district court considered the parties’ arguments
and the statutory sentencing factors before imposing the sentences. The district
court explained that the sentences were warranted in light of Roberson’s breach of
the court’s trust, failure to take responsibility for his actions, and non-compliance
with the conditions of his probation and supervised release, despite receiving a
lenient probationary sentence for his most recent offense. This explanation was
legally sufficient. See United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635, 637 (9th Cir. 2007);
see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (primary
purpose of revocation sentence is to sanction defendant’s breach of the court’s
trust).
Roberson next contends that the 36-month probation revocation sentence is
substantively unreasonable because it is arbitrary and does not account for his
mitigating circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The sentence
is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors
and the totality of circumstances. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-10393 &19-10394