United States of America v. WILLIAM LAMBERT, Jr., a.k.a. Duta

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). Accordingly, appellant’s
request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM LAMBERT, Jr.,
a.k.a. Duta,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30012
D.C. No. 1:93-cr-00043-JDS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Jack D. Shanstrom, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
William Lambert, Jr., appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
FILED
SEP 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30012 2
and we affirm.
Lambert contends that the district court erred under United States v. Grant,
664 F.3d 276 (9th Cir. 2011), when it imposed a term of imprisonment for the
purpose of rehabilitation. The record reflects that the court did not impose a
custodial sentence to promote Lambert’s rehabilitation. Moreover, given
Lambert’s significant breach of trust, reflected by the fact that he violated
conditions of his supervised release within weeks of being released, the sentence is
substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Miqbel, 444
F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (at a revocation sentencing, a district court may
sanction the defendant for his breach of trust).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --