United States v. Adam Young ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-30162
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00058-SPW-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ADAM CLARK YOUNG,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Adam Clark Young appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 10-month sentence imposed upon his second revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Young contends that the 10-month sentence is substantively unreasonable
*
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).
because (1) Young was facing pending state charges, and (2) the district court
wrongly relied on Young’s “toxic relationship with his wife due to substance
abuse” in imposing the sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Contrary to Young’s contention,
the district court did not rely on the actions of Young’s wife or Young’s
relationship with his wife in determining the sentence. Further, notwithstanding
the possibility that Young would be subject to criminal liability on state drug
charges, the within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
relevant factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Young’s repeated
breaches of the court’s trust. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United
States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (purpose of a revocation
sentence is to sanction the defendant’s breach of the court’s trust).
AFFIRMED.
2 22-30162