USA V. JACK SEIBERT, No. 18-10149 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-10149 D.C. No. 2:03-cr-00358-JAD v. MEMORANDUM* JACK SEIBERT, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Jack Seibert appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 21-month custodial sentence and 12-month supervised release term imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * 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). Seibert contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the government’s delay in prosecuting him foreclosed the possibility that he serve his revocation sentence concurrently with the sentence imposed for the state court conviction giving rise to the violation, and because the Bureau of Prisons is unable to meet his medical and neurological needs while he is in custody. He additionally contends that the supervision term is substantively unreasonable because he will serve one year of state parole upon release. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Seibert’s criminal history and his failure to be deterred by prior sentences. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) & cmt. n.4; Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 18-10149

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.