USA V. ERNEST BISSON, No. 15-30274 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED AUG 26 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-30274 D.C. No. 6:95-cr-60087-MC-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ERNEST JOSEPH BISSON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Ernest Joseph Bisson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month consecutive sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * 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). Bisson contends that the district court should not have imposed any prison time for his supervised release violation because he served 189 months for his underlying conviction, 69 months more than the 120 month statutory maximum that he contends would apply under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Even assuming that Bisson is correct that he served too much time for his underlying conviction, his claim fails. It is undisputed that Bisson was on supervised release when he committed the violation. The record shows that the district court took into account Bisson’s Johnson argument and imposed a belowGuidelines sentence. The court’s failure to impose an even lower sentence was not an abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of circumstances, including Bisson’s poor performance on supervision. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). AFFIRMED. 2 15-30274
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.
