United States v. 2020-11-17 | 20-30052 | USA V. PATRICK COFFEY | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PATRICK JOSHUA COFFEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-30052

D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00179-BLW-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Patrick Joshua Coffey appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 21-month sentence imposed following his third revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Coffey 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

NOV 17 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 20-30052
his difficult childhood, the nature of his violations, and the alleged harshness of his
prior custodial placements. The district court did not abuse its discretion. 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 Coffey’s repeated violations and his
demonstrated unsuitability for supervised release. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
Moreover, contrary to Coffey’s contentions, the record reflects that the district
court considered his mitigating arguments, relied on only proper sentencing
factors, and thoroughly explained its reasons for imposing the sentence. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (explaining
sentencing court’s procedural obligations); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058,
1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (seriousness of underlying offense “may be considered to a
lesser degree as part of the criminal history of the violator”).
AFFIRMED.