USA V. MICHAEL CHARLES, No. 18-10140 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-10140 D.C. No. 1:11-cr-00392-DAD v. MICHAEL DESHAWN CHARLES, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2018** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Michael DeShawn Charles appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Charles argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because 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). circumstances surrounding his violations of supervision were not sufficiently aggravating to justify the court’s upward variance from the Guidelines range of 713 months. The district court did not abuse its 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 the circumstances, including Charles’s repeated refusals to cooperate with the terms of supervision and the fact that he absconded for nine months while on supervision. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Moreover, contrary to Charles’s claim, the record as a whole reflects that the district court properly considered the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and adequately explained its reasons for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 18-10140
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.
