United States of America v. Christopher Brandon Williams

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER BRANDON WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10474
D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00441-KJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Brandon Williams appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Williams contends that the 18-month consecutive sentence is substantively
* 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
SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10474
unreasonable in light of the government’s delay in pursuing revocation
proceedings and his mitigating circumstances, and because the sentence is longer
than necessary to meet the goals of sentencing on revocation. The district court did
not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the sentencing
factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and the totality of the circumstances, including
the nature of Williams’s violations, his history of violating conditions of
supervised release, and his criminal history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
We decline to consider issues raised for the first time in Williams’s reply
brief. See United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --