United States v. Seymour-Smith

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 5, 2024
• Docket: 23-1291
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-1291 D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00064-TOR-1 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MEMORANDUM* KEENAN TYREL SEYMOUR-SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2024**

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Keenan Tyrel Seymour-Smith appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon the revocation of his supervised

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

Seymour-Smith contends that the district court failed to explain the sentence

* 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). adequately and did not address his mitigating arguments. 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 shows that the district court

considered Seymour-Smith’s request for a sentence that would run fully concurrent

with his state sentence for his new offenses, but believed that his admitted

violation warranted a separate sanction. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,

992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (adequate sentencing explanation may be inferred

from the record as a whole); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir.

2007) (purpose of revocation sentence is to sanction the defendant’s breach of the

court’s trust). The record does not support Seymour-Smith’s contention that the

court imposed the sentence to punish his new criminal conduct.

Seymour-Smith also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

because it accomplishes no statutory goal and impairs his rehabilitation. The

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 553 U.S. 38,

51 (2007). The consecutive 12-month sentence is substantively reasonable under

the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors, including the

seriousness of Seymour-Smith’s breach of the court’s trust and his criminal

history. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-1291