United States of America v. TRUMAN HARLOW STEVENS, Jr.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
TRUMAN HARLOW STEVENS, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 10-10572
10-10574
D.C. Nos. 2:07-cr-00488-JAT
2:98-cr-00391-JAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Truman Harlow Stevens, Jr., appeals from the
consecutive 24-month and 36-month sentences imposed upon revocation of two
concurrent terms of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 04 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-10572, 10-10574 2
Stevens contends that his sentences are substantively unreasonable because
the district court placed undue emphasis on the need to punish him for the
seriousness of his underlying convictions and violations at the expense of other
more salient factors. The record reflects that the district court considered and
properly applied the relevant factors before imposing sentences that are not
unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the sentencing
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e). See United States v. Miqbel,
444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --