USA v. Tony Brown, No. 09-10278 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 09-10278 D.C. No. 2:08-cr-50085-JAT v. MEMORANDUM * TONY ANTHONY BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 10, 2010 ** Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Tony Anthony Brown appeals from the six-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Brown contends that the district court procedurally erred by: (1) failing to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). provide an adequate explanation for the sentence imposed, and (2) improperly relying on the need to promote respect for the law. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err because it adequately explained its reasons for the sentence, including Brown s poor performance on supervised release, and the court did not rely on the need to promote respect for the law. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2006) (clarifying the factors that may be considered in sentencing upon revocation of supervised release). Brown also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable given his poor health. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 993-94; see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 09-10278

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.