United States v. Isaiah Willoughby

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 16 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-30192

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00111-JCC-1

v.

ISAIAH THOMAS WILLOUGHBY, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Isaiah Thomas Willoughby appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the five-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised

release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Willoughby 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). calculate the Guidelines range on the record and to explain the sentence

adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,

608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record

reflects that probation calculated the undisputed Guidelines range in its sentencing

memorandum, and the district court imposed a sentence at the bottom of that range

as recommended in the memorandum. Moreover, the district court fully

considered Willoughby’s arguments for a time-served sentence and explained why

it was not persuaded by them. Although the court did not specifically reference the

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, its explanation reflects that it considered

them. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court

is not required to “tick off” the sentencing factors, or “articulate in a vacuum how

each [sentencing] factor influences its determination of an appropriate sentence”).

On this record, Willoughby has not shown a reasonable probability that he would

have received a lower sentence absent the alleged errors. See United States v.

Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).

The government’s unopposed motion to file Volume 2 of its supplemental

excerpts of record under seal is granted. The Clerk will file publicly the motion to

seal at Docket Entry No. 13-1, and will file under seal Volume 2 at Docket Entry

No. 13-2.

AFFIRMED.

2 22-30192