United States of America v. Michael James Bassett

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
MICHAEL JAMES BASSETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50470
D.C. No. 2:04-cr-00060-SJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Michael James Bassett appeals from the eight-month custodial sentence
imposed upon revocation of supervised release, as well as the 16-month term of
supervised release, during which he must reside in a residential reentry center for
FILED
JUN 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-50470 2
up to 180 days. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bassett contends that the district court erred procedurally by failing to
consider his arguments in mitigation, by imposing or lengthening his prison term
for the purpose of rehabilitation, and by failing to recognize that the Sentencing
Guidelines are advisory. The record belies these contentions.
Bassett also contends that the district court relied excessively on the need to
protect the public, thus rendering his sentence substantively unreasonable. Both
the 8-month sentence and the 16-month term of supervised release are
substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the
considerations set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and (h). See Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Bassett finally contends that the district court erred procedurally and
substantively by imposing as a condition of supervised release the requirement that
he reside in a residential reentry center for up to 180 days after his release from
prison. The district court’s reasons for imposing this condition are evident from
the record, and the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing it. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3563(b)(11), 3583(d); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(e)(1).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --