USA V. ION DATCU, No. 14-30215 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 02 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-30215 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00326-JCC v. MEMORANDUM* ION DATCU, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2015** Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Ion Datcu appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Datcu contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain * 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). adequately the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), and find none. The court did provide a rationale for the sentence, but in any event, Datcu has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the court explained in greater detail why it sentenced Datcu above the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy statement range. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008). Datcu also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his circumstances and because of the district court’s allegedly undue emphasis on his criminal history. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Datcu’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The aboveGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Datcu’s multiple violations of supervised release and his breach of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). AFFIRMED. 2 14-30215
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.
