From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Rathman

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Apr 13, 2018
No. 17-30164 (9th Cir. Apr. 13, 2018)

Opinion

No. 17-30164

04-13-2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL LEE RATHMAN, Defendant-Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00218-BLW MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Daniel Lee Rathman appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 14-month sentence imposed upon his third revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rathman contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating arguments he made in the district court in support of his request for a six-month sentence. The court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Rathman's repeated violations of supervised release. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, contrary to Rathman's claim, the record reflects that the district court considered his arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence but found them unpersuasive. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358 (2007).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Rathman

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Apr 13, 2018
No. 17-30164 (9th Cir. Apr. 13, 2018)
Case details for

United States v. Rathman

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL LEE RATHMAN…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 13, 2018

Citations

No. 17-30164 (9th Cir. Apr. 13, 2018)