USA V. TYLER HUGHES, No. 22-30073 (9th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 16 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-30073 D.C. No. 6:04-cr-00017-BM-2 v. MEMORANDUM* TYLER BENTON HUGHES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 8, 2022** Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Tyler Benton Hughes appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon his fourth revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Hughes contends that the 18-month sentence is substantively unreasonable * 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). Hughes’s request for oral argument is, therefore, denied. in light of a previous comment by a magistrate judge that he would receive a 12month sentence for any new violations. We disagree. The magistrate judge’s comment, made before Hughes committed three additional violations, did not bind the sentencing court. In light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Hughes’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust and his unwillingness to participate meaningfully in supervision, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (purpose of a revocation sentence is to sanction the defendant’s breach of the court’s trust). AFFIRMED. 2 22-30073

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.