USA V. CLIFFORD BRIGHAM, No. 18-10132 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 17 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 18-10132 18-10138 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 1:17-cr-00308-LJO 1:17-cr-00309-LJO v. CLIFFORD BRIGHAM, a.k.a. Cleburne Brigham, a.k.a. Clifford J. Brigham, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted January 15, 2019** Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Clifford Brigham appeals the 36-month and 24-month consecutive sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Brigham first contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying * 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). on a prohibited sentencing consideration—the need to punish—in imposing the statutory maximum sentence in each case. He also contends that the district court failed to explain the sentences adequately. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and conclude that there is none. The record demonstrates that the district court imposed the sentences after considering Brigham’s history and characteristics and not to punish Brigham. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Moreover, the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing above-Guidelines sentences. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Brigham next contends that the sentences are substantively unreasonable in light of his age and health. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Brigham’s sentences are substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Brigham’s history and breach of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1182. AFFIRMED. 2 18-10132 & 18-10138
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.
