USA V. BLAINE FIFIELD, No. 10-30234 (9th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-30234 D.C. No. 9:03-cr-00042-DWM v. MEMORANDUM * BLAINE TRAVIS FIFIELD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Blaine Travis Fifield appeals from the 12-month sentence 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Fifield contends that the district court erred at sentencing by relying on factors excluded from consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), specifically, punishment and the need to promote respect for the law. Although the district court referred to punishment and the need to promote respect for the law, the record makes clear that the court did not primarily rely on those impermissible factors at sentencing. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006). The court was concerned with a pattern of conduct that demonstrated that Fifield ha[d] little respect for [the court s] command. United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007). Fifield also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that, under the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, the sentence at the bottom of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 10-30234

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.