United States of America v. Daniel Lee Rathman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DANIEL LEE RATHMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-30164
D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00218-BLW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Lee Rathman appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 14-month sentence imposed upon his third revocation of supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rathman contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of
* 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
APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-30164
the mitigating arguments he made in the district court in support of his request for
a six-month sentence. The court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of
the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances,
including Rathman’s repeated violations of supervised release. See Gall, 552 U.S.
at 51; see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
Moreover, contrary to Rathman’s claim, the record reflects that the district court
considered his arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence but found them
unpersuasive. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --