Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, an appellant challenged a sentence of 16 months and 20 days imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals evaluated the reasonableness of the sentence under its jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291, referencing United States v. Miqbel. The appellant contended that the district court failed to consider educational and vocational training as required by 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(D) when deciding on a consecutive sentence. However, the court found that the district court had adequately considered the relevant factors set out in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), as supported by United States v. Mix. The court emphasized that while a district court must consider these statutory factors, it is not required to explicitly mention each one, in line with United States v. Marcial-Santiago. Ultimately, the court affirmed the sentence's reasonableness, noting that the disposition is not published and does not serve as precedent, except under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consideration of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) Factorssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court is required to consider the factors under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) but is not obligated to explicitly reference each one.
Reasoning: It is noted that a district court is not obliged to reference each factor in 3553(a), and as per United States v. Marcial-Santiago, 447 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir.), a thoughtful consideration of the factors is sufficient.
Imposition of Consecutive Sentencessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal challenges the imposition of a consecutive sentence without explicit consideration of certain factors, but the court finds the sentence reasonable based on the overall consideration of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a).
Reasoning: Ness argues that the district court erred by not considering educational and vocational training under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(D) when imposing a consecutive sentence.
Non-Publication of Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is not published and does not serve as precedent, except under specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The court affirms the sentence, noting that this disposition is not for publication and does not serve as precedent except as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Review of Sentence for Reasonablenesssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews the reasonableness of sentences imposed after revocation of supervised release, as guided by precedent.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and reviews the sentence for reasonableness, as established in United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006).