United States of America v. Nigel Graham Ernst

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NIGEL GRAHAM ERNST,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-30290
D.C. No. 9:05-cr-00053-DWM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Nigel Graham Ernst appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the aggregate 6-month sentences imposed upon revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Ernst contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the
district court placed undue emphasis on uncharged conduct to the exclusion of
mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in
light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances,
including Ernst’s breach of the court’s trust within two months of being placed on
supervised release. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.
2007); see also United States v. Xinidakis, 598 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A
district court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences after
revocation of multiple concurrent terms of supervised release.”).
AFFIRMED.
15-30290 2

-- 2 of 2 --