United States v. Rowland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 29, 2024
• Docket: 23-2068
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-2068

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00349-SI-23 v. MEMORANDUM* ANDREW ROWLAND,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 22, 2024** Portland, Oregon

Before: WALLACH,*** CHRISTEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

* 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).

*** The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. Andrew Rowland appeals a district court order revoking his supervised

release and sentencing him to twenty-four months of incarceration with no

additional term of supervised release. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we affirm.

1. Rowland’s argument that the district court impermissibly relied on

unproven criminal conduct is groundless. The district court carefully distinguished

the unproven criminal conduct and pending state charges against Rowland from his

violations of the conditions of supervised release. Also, the district court’s

sentencing decision made no mention of the unproven criminal conduct asserted by

Rowland.

2. Rowland’s contention that the district court provided insufficient

explanation for its above-Guidelines sentence is also unsupported by the record. A

district court is required to provide specific reasons for exceeding sentencing

guidelines. United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). The

court, however, is not required to cite to specific factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 or

even reference the statute; it need only “provide a sufficient explanation of the

sentencing decision to permit meaningful appellate review.” United States v.

Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013).

The district court extensively discussed throughout the hearing the relevant

history of violations of the conditions of supervised release and Rowland’s related

2 substance use and addiction. Further, the district court’s sentencing decision refers

to this history.

3. Rowland’s argument that the district court’s sentencing decision was

substantively unreasonable is also unavailing. Whether the district court’s

sentence was substantively reasonable is reviewed for abuse of discretion under the

“totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110, 1116

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). “[A]

district court abuses its discretion only if its decision was ‘(1) illogical,

(2) implausible, or (3) without support in inferences that may be drawn from the

facts in the record.’” United States v. Grant, 727 F.3d 928, 933 (9th Cir. 2013)

(quoting United States v. Maier, 646 F.3d 1148, 1156 (9th Cir. 2011)).

The district court here explained that Rowland’s extensive history of

repeatedly absconding from supervised release, driven by his substance abuse,

even after a prior revocation sentence involving a combination of a shorter term of

imprisonment and additional supervised release, demonstrated that he was no

longer suitable for community supervision. This history is a cognizable sentencing

factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), documenting the “nature and circumstances of

the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” The twenty-four-

month duration of the sentence was also the same as the term of supervised release

from which Rowland had most recently absconded. The sentence and explanation

3 was grounded in the record and consideration of the factors prescribed in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e), and was not illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that

may be drawn from the facts in the record.

AFFIRMED.