USA V. MARK STEFFEN, No. 13-50286 (9th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUN 17 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-50286 D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01157-MWF v. MEMORANDUM* MARK ROBERT STEFFEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 12, 2014** Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Mark Robert Steffen appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Steffen contends that the district court erred by relying on improper factors * 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). in making its sentencing decision. We review for plain error, see United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), and find none. The record reflects that the district court properly considered the relevant sentencing factors specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and did not impose the sentence on the basis of any improper factor. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2006). Steffen also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Steffen s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Steffen s breach of trust and the need to deter. See id.; Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1182. Finally, we reject Steffen s contention that the district court breached a promise made at a previous sentencing hearing. AFFIRMED. 2 13-50286

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.