United States v. Saksa

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 26, 2025
• Docket: 24-5642
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-5642 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:18-cr-00161-SPW-1 v. MEMORANDUM* DUSTIN NEAL SAKSA,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Submitted February 18, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Dustin Neal Saksa appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 8-month sentence imposed upon the revocation of supervised release. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.1

* 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). 1 The government’s motion for judicial notice is granted. Saksa contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it

fails to give sufficient weight to his substance abuse issues and his need for

inpatient treatment. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the

within-Guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). As

the court explained, Saksa had violated the terms of his supervision in multiple

ways “despite knowing very well what is expected of [him].” In light of the 18

U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, the 8-

month sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; 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).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-5642