United States v. Jeffrey Southern ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30103
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:15-CR-00052-EJL-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFREY SOUTHERN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey Southern appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Southern contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
*
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).
explain the sentence adequately and by relying on impermissible sentencing factors
and a misunderstanding of his criminal history. 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 discussed Southern’s history and
characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the violations, and the need for
deterrence, which reflected its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing
factors and provided adequate explanation for the sentence. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to
Southern’s claim, the district court did not impose the sentence to promote his
rehabilitation. See Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 334 (2011) (“A court
commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison.”).
Finally, any factual error by the district court pertaining to Southern’s criminal
history did not affect the sentence selected. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007).
Southern also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The within-
guidelines sentence, six months of which was ordered to run concurrently to his
state sentence, is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the
circumstances. See id.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-30103