USA V. JEFFREY SOUTHERN, No. 19-30103 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-30103 D.C. No. 1:15-CR-00052-EJL-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY SOUTHERN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Jeffrey Southern appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Southern contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to * 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). explain the sentence adequately and by relying on impermissible sentencing factors and a misunderstanding of his criminal history. 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 district court discussed Southern’s history and characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the violations, and the need for deterrence, which reflected its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and provided adequate explanation for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, contrary to Southern’s claim, the district court did not impose the sentence to promote his rehabilitation. See Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 334 (2011) (“A court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison.”). Finally, any factual error by the district court pertaining to Southern’s criminal history did not affect the sentence selected. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Southern also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. The withinguidelines sentence, six months of which was ordered to run concurrently to his state sentence, is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See id. AFFIRMED. 2 19-30103
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.
