United States of America v. Richard Redfield

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RICHARD REDFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-30180
D.C. No. 1:05-cr-00140-SPW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Richard Redfield appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 11-month sentence imposed upon his third revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Redfield contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of
* 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). Accordingly, Redfield’s
request for oral argument is denied.
FILED
APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-30180
his willingness to admit his violations, the nature and age of some of his violations,
the time he served in state custody for one of his violations, and the brain injury he
suffered in 2014. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The high-end sentence is substantively reasonable
in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including Redfield’s repeated violations of supervised release. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007)
(at a revocation sentencing, violator may be sanctioned for breaching the court’s
trust).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --