USA V. ALAN RICHARDS, No. 14-50547 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 25 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-50547 D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00070-GHK v. MEMORANDUM* ALAN CRAIG RICHARDS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 21, 2015** Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. Alan Craig Richards appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Richards contends that the district court erred by failing to address his * 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). sentencing arguments and by improperly relying on the need to punish to impose sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered Richards’ arguments before imposing sentence but simply found them unpersuasive. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007). The record also reflects that the district court did not base the sentence primarily on the need to punish. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007). Richards next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Richards’ sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 36-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light the of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Richards’ breaches of the court’s trust. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1062-63 (at a revocation sentencing, the district court can sanction a violator for his breach of trust). AFFIRMED. 2 14-50547
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.
