United States v. Patrick Laverdure, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Patrick Laverdure, Jr.

609 F. App'x 417

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 2015

Docket13-30298

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 609 F. App'x 417 (United States v. Patrick Laverdure, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Patrick Laverdure, Jr., 609 F. App'x 417 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Patrick Jedidya Laverdure, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 160-month sentence and a special condition of supervised release imposed following his jury-trial conviction for aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2241, and abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2244. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Laverdure contends that his custodial sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his personal history and fetal alcohol syndrome. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Laver-dure’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense and the need to protect the public. See *418 Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Accordingly, we affirm the custodial sentence.

Laverdure also challenges the district court’s imposition of special supervised release condition 9, which prohibits him from associating with minors in several ways. In light of the government’s concession that this condition is overbroad, we vacate and remand for the district court to consider whether it is necessary to impose a similar but more narrowly drawn restriction. See United States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082, 1108 (9th Cir.2012). If the court decides to impose a similar condition, it shall undertake an individualized review of Laverdure’s relationship with his minor daughter to determine whether the condition should apply to her. See id. at 1093-94.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Patrick Jedidya Laverdure, Jr., appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 160-month sentence and a special condition of supervised release imposed following his jury-trial conviction for aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2241, and abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 2244. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Laverdure contends that his custodial sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his personal history and fetal alcohol syndrome. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Laver-dure’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense and the need to protect the public. See *418 Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Accordingly, we affirm the custodial sentence.

Laverdure also challenges the district court’s imposition of special supervised release condition 9, which prohibits him from associating with minors in several ways. In light of the government’s concession that this condition is overbroad, we vacate and remand for the district court to consider whether it is necessary to impose a similar but more narrowly drawn restriction. See United States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082, 1108 (9th Cir.2012). If the court decides to impose a similar condition, it shall undertake an individualized review of Laverdure’s relationship with his minor daughter to determine whether the condition should apply to her. See id. at 1093-94.

AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; REMANDED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 F. App'x 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-patrick-laverdure-jr-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack