United States of America v. Ion Datcu

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ION DATCU,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-30215
D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00326-JCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ion Datcu 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.
Datcu contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain
FILED
SEP 02 2015
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 --

adequately the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Hammons,
558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), and find none. The court did provide a
rationale for the sentence, but in any event, Datcu has not shown a reasonable
probability that he would have received a different sentence had the court
explained in greater detail why it sentenced Datcu above the Sentencing
Guidelines’ policy statement range. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755,
762 (9th Cir. 2008).
Datcu also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
of his circumstances and because of the district court’s allegedly undue emphasis
on his criminal history. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
Datcu’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-
Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Datcu’s multiple
violations of supervised release and his breach of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552
U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.
2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the
discretion of the district court.”).
AFFIRMED.
14-30215 2

-- 2 of 2 --