United States v. Anthony Fuller

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 11 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10352
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00023-SOM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANTHONY T. FULLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Anthony T. Fuller appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 26-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Fuller first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
*
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).
explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and conclude that there is none. The
court thoroughly explained its reasons for the sentence on two occasions. Contrary
to Fuller’s suggestion, the court was not required to mention each of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) factors to show that it had considered them. See United States v. Carty,
520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Fuller next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He
argues that the 26-month sentence is longer than necessary and that the district
court imposed the sentence solely to promote respect for the law, an impermissible
sentencing factor in a supervised release proceeding. The district court did not
abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The record
shows that the court did not base the sentence on improper considerations, but
rather properly considered Fuller’s poor attitude on supervision, as well as the
frequency of his supervised release revocations and the length of his prior
sentences. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007)
(the violator’s history and the extent of his breach of the court’s trust are
appropriate considerations at a revocation sentencing). The above-Guidelines
sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing
factors and the totality of the circumstances. Fuller’s constitutional claims
concerning the length of his sentence also fail. See United States v. Williams, 636
2 17-10352
F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2011) (sentence is unconstitutional if it is “grossly
disproportionate” to the crime).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-10352