USA V. GERALD RANDLE, No. 18-30017 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-30017 D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00005-BR v. MEMORANDUM* GERALD DUANE RANDLE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Gerald Duane Randle appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Randle argues 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 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). the sentence adequately and failing to address his mitigating arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record as a whole reflects that the court heard and considered Randle’s arguments, but was nevertheless persuaded that the maximum sentence of incarceration was warranted. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Randle next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Randle’s extensive criminal history, his repeated violations of conditions, his failure to engage in the support programs previously offered to him, and his unwillingness to take responsibility for his actions. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Randle’s unopposed motion to supplement the record on appeal is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 18-30017
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.
