USA V. SHANE BRIZENDINE, No. 12-30263 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 01 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-30263 D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00289-EJL v. MEMORANDUM * SHANE KENNETH BRIZENDINE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 24, 2013 ** Before: ALARCÃ N, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Shane Kenneth Brizendine appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the 140-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846; and the 24-month, partially concurrent sentence * 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). imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Brizendine contends that his 152-month aggregate sentence is substantively unreasonable. He argues that the court should have imposed an aggregate sentence of no more than 140 months. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Brizendine s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Brizendine s 140-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id. Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that 12 months of the revocation sentence be served consecutively to the 140-month sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). Brizendine s motion to dismiss counsel and appoint new counsel received on June 26, 2013, is deemed filed and denied. AFFIRMED. 2 12-30263

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.