USA V. MANISH SHARMA, No. 17-10027 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 27 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-10027 D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00116-HDM v. MEMORANDUM* MANISH SHARMA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Manish Sharma appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the eight-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Sharma contends that the district court violated the prohibition against * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). double jeopardy by imposing the eight-month sentence based, in part, on two positive drugs tests for which he had already been sanctioned with three days in jail. We review for plain error. See United States v. Teague, 722 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2013). Even assuming the district court erred, Sharma has not shown that the error affected his substantial rights. Id. at 1192-93. Sharma also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the need to promote rehabilitation and by relying on unsupported assumptions regarding his drug-related conduct when deciding what sentence to impose. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there was none. The record reflects that the district court considered Sharma’s capacity for rehabilitation but concluded that, in light of his drug relapse, a term of imprisonment was necessary in order to protect the public. Moreover, Sharma has not shown that the district court relied on any clearly erroneous facts in imposing the sentence. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.”). Finally, the eight-month, within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 17-10027
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.
