United States of America v. Leslie Guy Wilson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LESLIE GUY WILSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 20-30216
20-30217
20-30218
D.C. Nos.
2:20-cr-00080-RSL-1
2:13-cr-00024-RSL-1
2:92-cr-00014-RSL-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Leslie Guy Wilson appeals from the district
court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month sentence imposed upon revocation
of three supervised release terms. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
* 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
FEB 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-30216, 20-30217, & 20-30218
and we affirm.
Wilson first contends that, because he had permission to interact with his
residential reentry center roommate and the government never retracted that
permission, the district court erred in revoking his supervised release for
associating with a felon. We need not address this argument because revocation of
supervised release can be “based upon only one violation,” United States v. Daniel,
209 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2000), and Wilson does not contest the district
court’s findings that he violated at least one other condition of each of his
supervised release terms.
Wilson next contends that the district court did not adequately explain its
reasons for imposing an above-Guidelines 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. The district court sufficiently explained its reasons for
imposing the above-Guidelines sentence, including Wilson’s history and
characteristics, and the need to protect the public. See United States v. Carty, 520
F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Wilson further argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
of the allegedly minor nature of the violations. 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)

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-30216, 20-30217, & 20-30218
factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Wilson’s multiple breaches
of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d
1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
Wilson lastly claims that his supervised release was improperly revoked
because, under United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), the factual bases
for the revocation had to be found by a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
This claim is foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Henderson, 998 F.3d
1071 (9th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 810 (2022).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --