United States v. Nigel Ernst ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 11 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 19-30137
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 9:05-cr-00053-DWM-1
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    NIGEL GRAHAM ERNST,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Montana
    Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 4, 2020**
    Before:      FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    Nigel Graham Ernst appeals from the district court’s judgment and
    challenges the 78-month sentence imposed upon his fourth revocation of
    supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    Ernst contends that the district court erred by failing to consider adequately
    *
    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).
    the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e) sentencing factors and relying on the need to promote
    respect for the law, which is an improper consideration in a revocation proceeding.
    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 record reflects that the
    district court considered and relied upon only proper sentencing factors, including
    Ernst’s repeated breach of the court’s trust. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e); United States
    v. Simtob, 
    485 F.3d 1058
    , 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
    Ernst also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
    district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    ,
    51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e)
    sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Ernst’s extensive
    history of non-compliance and the need for deterrence. See Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51
    ;
    Simtob, 
    485 F.3d at 1063
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    19-30137
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-30137

Filed Date: 2/11/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/11/2020