United States of America v. Albert Samoa Maifea

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALBERT SAMOA MAIFEA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 23-30003
D.C. No. 2:21-cr-00130-LK-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Lauren King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Albert Samoa Maifea appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the four-month sentence imposed upon the third revocation of his
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Maifea contends that the district court erred by listing the 18 U.S.C.
* 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).
FILED
MAR 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-30003
§ 3553(a)(2)(A) factors among those it was considering in selecting the sentence.
Maifea is correct that § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors may not be considered at a
revocation sentencing, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.
2006), but even assuming the district court erred, any error here was harmless. In
response to defense counsel’s objection, the district court explained that the
prohibited factors did not affect its sentencing decision. The record, which shows
that the sentence was driven by Maifea’s poor performance on supervision,
supports this conclusion. See United States v. Ali, 620 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir.
2010) (sentencing error is harmless if the sentence would not be shorter absent the
alleged error).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --