United States v. Wylie Thurman ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 18-30100
18-30101
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 2:12-cr-00026-SMJ
v. 2:17-cr-00196-SMJ
WYLIE LUCAS JOHN THURMAN, a.k.a.
Wiley Lucas John Thurman,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Wylie Lucas John Thurman appeals from the district court’s judgments and
challenges the 60-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised
release and the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for failure to register, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Thurman first contends that the district court failed to notify him that it
intended to rely on his failure to undergo substance abuse treatment as a reason to
vary upward from the Guideline range. We review for plain error, see United
States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008), and conclude that there is
none. Thurman provides no authority from this circuit to support his claim that the
court was required to give him notice of the evidence it might consider before
imposing above-Guidelines sentences. Moreover, the presentence report gave
Thurman adequate notice that his failure to engage in substance abuse treatment on
supervised release could be an issue at sentencing.
Thurman also argues that his sentences are substantively unreasonable.
Though the sentences imposed are significantly higher than the Guidelines range,
we do not “have a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a
clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing the relevant
factors.” United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2009).
The 30-month sentence imposed for failure to register and the 60-month revocation
sentence are substantively reasonable in light of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Thurman’s
continued substance abuse, high risk for recidivism, repeated violations of
conditions, and decision to abscond while on supervised release. See Gall v.
2 18-30100 & 18-30101
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
3 18-30100 & 18-30101