From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Farrell

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 6, 2012
465 F. App'x 637 (9th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 11-30074 D.C. No. 6:08-cr-00023-DWM

01-06-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEPHEN E. FARRELL, Defendant - Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding


Submitted December 19, 2011

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Stephen E. Farrell appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Farrell contends that the district court erred under United States v. Miqbel, AAA F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2006), and Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011), by improperly basing his sentence on the need for punishment and rehabilitation. This contention is belied by the record.

Farrell also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The 2A-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, particularly the need for the sentence imposed to protect the public and to sanction Farrell for his breach of trust. See United States v. Simtob, A85 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Farrell

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 6, 2012
465 F. App'x 637 (9th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Farrell

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEPHEN E. FARRELL…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 6, 2012

Citations

465 F. App'x 637 (9th Cir. 2012)