United States v. Morgan

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-5520
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-5520 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:11-cr-00090-SPW-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JOSHUA ALLEN MORGAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Joshua Allen Morgan appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon the third revocation of his

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

Morgan contends that the 24-month sentence is substantively unreasonable

* 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). because the district court elected to run it consecutively to the 262-month sentence

for his new offense. In his view, a concurrent sentence would have been sufficient

to serve the purposes of sentencing. We review this claim for abuse of discretion.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

The district court did not abuse its discretion. Contrary to Morgan’s

assertion, the court understood it could impose a fully concurrent sentence. It

reasonably declined to do so, however, because it believed a separate sanction was

warranted for the serious and ongoing conduct underlying the revocation. See

United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (purpose of a

revocation sentence is to sanction the defendant’s breach of the court’s trust). In

light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the

circumstances, including Morgan’s repeated violations of the terms of his

supervision and the need to protect the public, the consecutive 24-month sentence

is substantively reasonable. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-5520