United States of America v. Bruce R. Goldman

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
BRUCE R. GOLDMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10371
D.C. No. 2:03-cr-50080-MHM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Bruce R. Goldman appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
FILED
AUG 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-10371 2
Goldman contends that the district court clearly erred in characterizing his
revocation offenses as involving “fraud.” However, any error in such a
characterization was harmless because the record reflects that the district court
relied on the timing and nature of his revocation offenses, not that they specifically
involved “fraud.” See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir.
2007); see also United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1279-80 (9th Cir. 2006)
(considering whether incorrect application of the Guidelines is harmless).
Goldman also contends that the district court procedurally erred by primarily
basing his sentence on the seriousness of the new criminal offenses underlying the
revocation. This contention fails because the record reflects that the district court
properly considered Goldman’s revocation offenses as they contributed to the
severity of his breach of the court’s trust. See Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1062-63.
Goldman contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively
unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the
sentence given Goldman’s severe breach of the court’s trust and that his original
sentence was the result of a downward departure. See United States v. Carty, 520
F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 cmt. n.4; see also
Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1062-63.
We decline to consider issues raised for the first time in Goldman’s reply

-- 2 of 3 --

09-10371 3
brief. See United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --