United States of America v. Brandon Paillet

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BRANDON PAILLET,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10378
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00266-CRB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 9, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,*** Chief District
Judge.
Defendant Brandon Paillet appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his
supervised release and the sentence imposed upon revocation.
FILED
AUG 15 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
*** The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, United States Chief District
Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to strike Kenya
Fulcher’s testimony. The record does not show that Defendant was prejudiced or
that the government’s untimely disclosure resulted from anything more than mere
negligence. See United States v. Dupuy, 760 F.2d 1492, 1497 (9th Cir. 1985)
("[U]ntimely disclosure does not require striking a witness’s testimony or calling a
mistrial where the defendant is not prejudiced and the untimely disclosure was not
willful avoidance and egregious dereliction of the prosecutor’s statutory
obligation." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
2. The district court did not plainly err at sentencing by punishing
Defendant because of the severity of the criminal conduct underlying the
revocation. The sentencing transcript shows that the district court relied primarily
on permissible revocation factors, such as Defendant’s criminal history, the need to
be able to keep an eye on him to protect the public, and Defendant’s repeated
breaches of the court’s trust. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062
(9th Cir. 2007) (noting that "[t]he seriousness of the offense underlying the
revocation, though not a focal point of the inquiry, may be considered to a lesser
degree as part of the criminal history of the violator").
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --