United States v. Joshua Cislo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30059
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 9:19-cr-00003-DWM-1
v.
JOSHUA CISLO, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Joshua Cislo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
11-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cislo contends that the 11-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 it is longer than necessary to satisfy the goals of sentencing and it creates
an unwarranted sentencing disparity with other first-time supervised release
violators. The district court did not abuse its discretion. 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, including the nature and
extent of Cislo’s violations. See id. Moreover, the record does not support Cislo’s
claim that the district court imposed the 11-month sentence to punish him. Rather,
the record shows that the court relied on proper considerations, such as the need to
protect the public and Cislo’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust, in selecting the
sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-
63 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-30059