United States v. White

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 24, 2024
• Docket: 24-529
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 24 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-529 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:13-cr-00337-WBS-1 v. MEMORANDUM* PAUL DOUGLAS WHITE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 16, 2024**

Before: SCHROEDER, VANDYKE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Paul Douglas White appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed upon his

second revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

White contends that the district court erred by imposing a term of

* 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). imprisonment instead of placing him in a residential treatment program to address

his mental health and substance abuse issues. We review this claim for abuse of

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

The district court considered White’s request for treatment, but concluded

that it could not, “in good conscience,” impose a lesser sentence than it had for his

previous revocation. As it explained, after White completed his prior 12-month

sentence, he “went right out and started using drugs, and it escalated into

something far, far worse.” The court also noted White’s past unwillingness to

avail himself of the resources provided to him on supervision. In light of this

history and the seriousness of White’s violations, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e);

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 24-529