United States of America v. Adam Colten Howell

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ADAM COLTEN HOWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30187
D.C. No. 1:18-cr-02075-SMJ-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Adam Colten Howell appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the nine-month sentence imposed upon his second revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Howell 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
FEB 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-30187
his housing instability and the allegedly minor nature of his violation, and because
he does not pose a threat to the community. The district court did not abuse its
discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-
Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Howell’s
consistent disregard for his obligation to maintain contact with probation. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover, contrary to Howell’s contentions, the record
reflects that the court considered his arguments and the § 3553(a) factors, see
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and relied only
on proper sentencing considerations, see United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058,
1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --