United States v. Dion Patterson

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50000
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 5:11-cr-00048-VAP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DION IVAN PATTERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Dion Ivan Patterson appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Patterson contends that he was denied the right of allocution. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(E). The record belies this contention. Patterson had an
opportunity to make a statement both before and after the court announced its
tentative sentence. See United States v. Laverne, 963 F.2d 235, 237-38 (9th Cir.
1992) (right of allocution satisfied where defendant permitted to speak before the
end of the sentencing hearing but after the court indicated its views regarding the
appropriate sentence).
Patterson also contends that the district court procedurally erred by
(1) failing to address his mitigating arguments, (2) focusing exclusively on the
need to protect the public, (3) relying on clearly erroneous facts, and (4) basing his
sentence on the seriousness of his new criminal conduct. We review for plain
error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court adequately considered
Patterson’s mitigating arguments and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors, sufficiently
explained the sentence, and did not choose the sentence based on clearly erroneous
facts. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
It further reflects that the district court took proper account of the seriousness of
Patterson’s conduct and did not impose sentence primarily on this basis. See
United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
2 14-50000
Finally, Patterson contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of the court’s alleged procedural errors. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing Patterson’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light
of the totality of the circumstances and the section 3583(e) sentencing factors,
including the need to afford adequate deterrence and to protect the public. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904,
908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case
is for the discretion of the district court.”).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-50000