United States of America v. Wayne Thomas Laborin

11-10057Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit22.12.2011

Gesamter Gesetzestext

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WAYNE THOMAS LABORIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10057
D.C. No. 4:06-cr-00036-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Wayne Thomas Laborin appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-10057 2
Laborin first contends that the district court failed to consider his remorse
and family support as mitigating factors. The record belies this contention.
Next, he alleges that the court sentenced him under the “misimpression” that
the offense triggering his revocation was a felony. Although he was convicted of
an offense that satisfied Grade C violation criteria, in his revocation proceedings
Laborin admitted that the conduct underlying the conviction satisfied Grade A
violation criteria. The district court’s consideration of his conduct as a Grade A
violation was not error. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1, cmt. n. 1.
Laborin finally contends that the court failed to consider the sentence to be
imposed in light of the original Guideline sentence, which resulted in an aggregate
sentence four months above the original Guideline range. We review for plain
error, see United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), and find
none. The sentence imposed was within the recommended Guidelines range, see
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, and was substantively reasonable, see Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.