United States of America v. Stephen E. Farrell

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
STEPHEN E. FARRELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-30074
D.C. No. 6:08-cr-00023-DWM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Stephen E. Farrell appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-30074 2
Farrell contends that the district court erred under United States v. Miqbel,
444 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2006), and Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011),
by improperly basing his sentence on the need for punishment and rehabilitation.
This contention is belied by the record.
Farrell also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
24-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the
circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, particularly the need
for the sentence imposed to protect the public and to sanction Farrell for his breach
of trust. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --