United States of America v. Derrick Lee Dean Moore

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DERRICK LEE DEAN MOORE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30075
D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00017-SPW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Derrick Lee Dean Moore appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon his fourth revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Moore contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
* 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). Accordingly, Moore’s
motion to expedite this appeal without oral argument is granted.
FILED
NOV 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-30075
explain its calculation of the Guidelines range and its reasons for imposing the
sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608
F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. Moore does not
dispute that the district court calculated the correct Guidelines range. He,
therefore, has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a
different sentence if the district court had said more about how it arrived at that
range. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1102 (9th Cir. 2013).
Moreover, the record reflects that the district court considered Moore’s arguments
and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and thoroughly explained its
reasons for imposing the within-Guidelines sentence, including Moore’s repeated
failure to comply with the terms of his supervision. See United States v. Carty,
520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (sentencing court “need not tick off
each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --