United States of America v. Kristopher Lionel Goldtooth

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KRISTOPHER LIONEL GOLDTOOTH,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10170
D.C. No. 3:12-cr-08148-PGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Kristopher Lionel Goldtooth appeals the district court’s judgment revoking
his supervised release and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon
revocation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Goldtooth contends that the district court improperly based its imposition 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
JUN 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10170
the statutory maximum sentence on punitive factors. Because Goldtooth did not
raise this objection in the district court, we review for plain error. See United
States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). We conclude
that there is no error of any kind. The record demonstrates that the district court
correctly sanctioned “primarily the defendant’s breach of trust, while taking into
account, to a limited degree, the seriousness of the underlying violation and the
criminal history of the violator.” U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt. A(3)(b); see also United
States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court may “properly
look to and consider the conduct underlying the revocation as one of many acts
contributing to the severity of the violator’s breach of trust so as not to preclude a
full review of the violator’s history and the violator’s likelihood of repeating that
history”).
Goldtooth also argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We
conclude that the above-Guidelines, 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable
in light of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances, including Goldtooth’s repeated violations of the terms of his
supervised release. See United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635, 637 (9th Cir.
2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --