United States of America v. Jeffrey Sean Mitchell

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).
NC/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY SEAN MITCHELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50412
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00280-JFW
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey Sean Mitchell appeals from the nine-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
MAR 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NC/Research 09-50412 2
Mitchell contends that the district court impermissibly based the sentence
upon the fact that his case had been transferred from another district and the
limited resources of the probation office. This contention is belied by the record,
which reflects that the district court considered the appropriate factors under
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) at sentencing, including Mitchell’s record of repeatedly
violating conditions of supervised release. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d
1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2006) (identifying the statutory factors a district court may
consider when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release).
Mitchell next contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
address his nonfrivolous arguments for imposing a lower sentence. The record
reflects that the district court listened to Mitchell’s arguments, considered the
evidence, and did not otherwise procedurally err when imposing the sentence
within the advisory guidelines range. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357-
58 (2007).
Finally, Mitchell contends that the sentence imposed is substantively
unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence is
reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. nn.3-4 (2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --