USA V. SAMUEL LAVERDURE, No. 16-30197 (9th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-30197 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00032-LRS v. MEMORANDUM* SAMUEL GORDON LAVERDURE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Samuel Gordon Laverdure appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 8-month custodial sentence and 16-month supervised release term imposed following 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). Laverdure contends that his supervised release term is substantively unreasonable in light of his unwillingness to comply with the terms of supervised release. He argues that the district court should have imposed a longer custodial sentence with no supervised release to follow. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Laverdure’s sentence. See Gall v.United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The custodial sentence and term of supervised release are substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Furthermore, contrary to Laverdure’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered his argument that no further term of supervised release should be imposed. AFFIRMED. 2 16-30197

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.