United States of America v. Brandon Ross Linder

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON ROSS LINDER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-538
D.C. No. 3:18-cr-00458-AN-1
District of Oregon, Portland
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Adrienne C. Nelson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Brandon Ross Linder appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his
supervised release and challenges the nine-month sentence imposed upon
revocation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Linder first 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).
FILED
SEP 27 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-538
provide an adequate explanation for the sentence and failing to consider his
arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence. We review for plain error, see United
States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and conclude that there is
none. The record reflects that the district court listened to Linder’s arguments but
concluded that the within-Guidelines sentence was warranted. The district court’s
explanation, in light of the record as a whole, is sufficient to allow for meaningful
appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc).
Linder further contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of his progress and the rehabilitative goals of supervised release. We
disagree. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
Linder’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007)
(purpose of a revocation sentence is to sanction the defendant’s breach of the
court’s trust).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --