United States of America v. Shannon Kane

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SHANNON KANE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10343
D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00162-GMN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Shannon Kane appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
14-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Kane contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain
* 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 17-10343
the sentence adequately and relying on the erroneous finding that Kane trafficked
methamphetamine. 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 explicitly addressed Kane’s argument concerning his “people
pleasing” behavior and adequately explained why a high-end sentence was
warranted. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc). Furthermore, the district court did not find that Kane had trafficked
methamphetamine. Instead, the court observed that Kane had chosen to
accommodate someone who wanted him to traffic methamphetamine, a finding
that was supported by the record.
Kane also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of
mitigating circumstances in this case. The district court did not abuse its discretion
in imposing Kane’s sentence. 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) factors
and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of Kane’s violations.
See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --