USA V. STEVEN DOCK, No. 14-10146 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 12 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-10146 D.C. No. 2:97-cr-00410-ROS v. MEMORANDUM* STEVEN RYAN DOCK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 9, 2014** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Steven Ryan Dock appeals from the 35-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Dock contends that the district court erred by imposing sentence on the basis * 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). of the need to punish him for his original crime of conviction and his alcoholism. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. Although the court did discuss Dock’s original crime and alcohol problem, it did so in the context of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors, particularly the need to protect the public, and did not impose sentence for punitive purposes. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(C), 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007) (at a revocation sentencing, district court may consider the history of the violator because section 3583(e) specifically directs courts to consider the history and characteristics of the defendant). Further, because this was Dock’s third revocation offense, the 35month sentence is substantively reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (at a revocation sentencing, the court may sanction a violator for his breach of the court’s trust). AFFIRMED. 2 14-10146

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.