United States of America v. Nai Ching Saelee

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
NAI CHING SAELEE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30194
D.C. No.
3:04-cr-00125-RRB-MMS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Nai Ching Saelee appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 6-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Saelee contends that the district court impermissibly imposed the sentence to
* 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
JAN 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-30194
punish him for his violation conduct. We review for plain error, see United States
v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that
there is none. Though the court commented that Saelee would “pay the price” for
his “inappropriate conduct,” the record as a whole reflects that the court imposed
the sentence primarily to sanction Saelee’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust
and in light of the court’s concerns regarding recidivism. See United States v.
Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007) (primary purpose of a revocation
sentence is to sanction the defendant’s breach of the court’s trust but the court can
also consider the seriousness of the violation conduct as part of its review of the
defendant’s criminal history and propensity for recidivism).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --