Opinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01180-JAT. Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding.
The Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
United States v. Hanks, 163 Fed.Appx. 549, (9th Cir. Ariz., 2006)
For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Roger Dokken, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Uspx - Office of The U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ.
For Jerry Danny Hanks, Defendant - Appellant: Gail Gianasi Natale, Attorney, Phoenix, AZ.
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Jerry Danny Hanks appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hanks contends that the district court procedurally erred by imposing the maximum term of imprisonment to punish him for his underlying crime and his multiple violations of supervised release. He also argues that the court failed to consider the mitigating circumstance of his hip condition, and did not adequately explain the above-Guideline sentence. 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 district court was aware of the Guidelines range and Hank's mitigating arguments, and did not impose sentence to punish Hanks, but rather on the basis of Hank's repeated breaches of the court's trust. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007) (at a revocation sentencing, the court may sanction the violator for his breach of the court's trust). Furthermore, the court adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.