USA V. RANDY MAINWARING, No. 16-30084 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-30084 D.C. No. 6:09-cr-60105-MC v. MEMORANDUM* RANDY ARLAN MAINWARING, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Randy Arlan Mainwaring appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 28-month sentence imposed upon his third revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Mainwaring contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The * 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). district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Mainwaring’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Mainwaring’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust and his unsuitability for supervised release. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). AFFIRMED. 2 16-30084

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.