United States of America v. Jasen L. Dushane

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASEN L. DUSHANE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-10436
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00016-LRH-
VPC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jasen DuShane appeals the sentence imposed by the district court upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
we affirm.
FILED
NOV 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

In imposing a one-year sentence for DuShane’s two supervised release
revocations, the district court did not improperly consider DuShane’s conduct
underlying the revocations, but rather focused on his breach of the court’s trust and
his criminal history. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir.
2007).
The court did not abuse its discretion in making DuShane’s sentence
consecutive to the sentence imposed by the Eastern District of California. See
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) (stating that a term of imprisonment imposed on revocation of
supervised release should be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment
that the defendant is serving). The sentence was neither substantively
unreasonable nor the result of impermissible double counting. United States v.
Smith, 719 F.3d 1120, 1123–25 (9th Cir. 2013); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d
984, 994–95 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --