United States of America v. Dennis J. Sittman

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).
SR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DENNIS J. SITTMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10302
D.C. No. 1:91-cr-00921-ACK
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Alan C. Kay, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Dennis J. Sittman appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking a
previous term of supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment and a
FILED
MAR 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

SR/Research 09-10302 2
new term of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Sittman contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain its reasons for imposing another term of supervised release and contends
that the new term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable. The record
reflects that the district court did not procedurally err, and the sentence is not
substantively unreasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-
51 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc);
United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --