USA V. AMBER HEILMAN-BLANTON, No. 19-30064 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-30064 D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00188-JLR-2 v. MEMORANDUM* AMBER HEILMAN-BLANTON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 15, 2019** Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Amber Heilman-Blanton appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 14-month sentence imposed upon her second revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Heilman-Blanton contends that the district court 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. We review for plain error, see United States v. ValenciaBarragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing a sentence one month above the Guidelines range, including HeilmanBlanton’s history of noncompliance and her unsuitability for supervised release. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to Heilman-Blanton’s contention, the district court did not rely on impermissible sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006). Heilman-Blanton also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the alleged procedural errors and her struggles with substance abuse. 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. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 19-30064
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.
