United States of America v. Annie B. Shinault

* 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
ANNIE B. SHINAULT,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30240
D.C. No. 3:01-CR-00131-JKS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 28, 2010 **
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: SCHROEDER, O’SCANNLAIN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Annie B. Shinault admitted violations of the conditions of her supervised
release. She appeals her 24-month sentence imposed consecutive to her state
sentence, arguing that the sentence was unreasonable because the district court
FILED
AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
failed to consider all of the relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
She also argues that the district court committed plain error by failing to require
written affidavits and full briefing regarding the impact of a federal detainer on her
rehabilitative options. As the parties are familiar with the facts, procedural history,
and arguments, we will not recount them here. We affirm.
The district court did not commit any significant procedural error. When the
record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the evidence and
arguments, and that this or similar reasoning underlies the judge’s conclusion, the
judge need not explicitly state the he had heard and considered the evidence and
argument. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 359 (2007). “The district court
need not tick off each of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to show that it has
considered them.” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc). The record indicates the district court considered all relevant sentencing
factors, including Shinault’s age, history and characteristics, and need for
rehabilitation.
Furthermore, the sentence was substantively reasonable. The district court
imposed the maximum sentence as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The record
indicates Shinault has an extensive criminal history and poses a great danger to the
community. Despite Shinault’s advanced age at the time of release from her state

-- 2 of 3 --

3
sentence, the district court was entitled to conclude Shinault is likely to continue
her violent behavior. That conclusion was not clearly erroneous. The district court
properly weighed the appropriate factors against Shinault’s demonstrated lack of
success in rehabilitative programs.
The district court did not commit plain error by failing to require written
affidavits regarding the impact of a federal detainer on Shinault’s rehabilitative
options. Only notice of the revocation hearing, the alleged violation, and right to
counsel, as well as an opportunity to be heard and to question any witnesses, are
required. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(1)(B). The district court complied with this
requirement, and Shinault concedes that she received notice of the alleged violation
and the supporting statutory provision. There is no authority to sustain Shinault’s
contention that, under the federal rules or the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution, the district court should have required written affidavits
regarding the government’s legal arguments.
In addition, the absence of written affidavits on the impact of a federal
detainer on Shinault’s options for rehabilitation did not affect Shinault’s substantial
rights since the district court concluded that any rehabilitation would be ineffective
nonetheless.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --