USA V. CHELSEA EDWARDS, No. 16-30127 (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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-30127 D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00112-EJL v. MEMORANDUM * CHELSEA D. EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding** Submitted March 8, 2017*** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Chelsea D. Edwards appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month 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 Honorable Rosanna Malouf Peterson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Edwards contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence adequately, justify its upward variance from the Guidelines range, and respond to her mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and hold that there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered Edwards’s arguments for a mid-range sentence and sufficiently explained its reasons for the aboveGuidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Edwards next claims that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. 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 Edwards’s extensive criminal history and her repeated breaches of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). AFFIRMED. 2 16-30127

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.