United States of America v. James Timothy Hayes

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
JAMES TIMOTHY HAYES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-30071
D.C. No. 3:04-cr-00134-PA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
James Timothy Hayes appeals from the eight-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-30071 2
Hayes contends that the district court erred by considering legally
impermissible factors when imposing the sentence. The record reflects that the
district court considered the appropriate sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) and was sanctioning Hayes for “breach of trust.” See United States v.
Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2006).
Hayes also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
provide an adequate statement of reasons for the sentence imposed, and that the
sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court
did not procedurally err and that, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the
sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,
991-93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1176 (sentence
imposed upon revocation of supervised release reviewed for reasonableness).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --