United States of America v. Ronald S. Stern, a.k.a. Burton D. Greenfield, a.k.a. Bob Morgan

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
RONALD S. STERN, a.k.a. Burton D.
Greenfield, a.k.a. Bob Morgan,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50064
D.C. No. 2:03-cr-01220-GAF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ronald S. Stern 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
SEP 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-50064 2
Stern contends that his above-Guidelines sentence is substantively
unreasonable, in light of his health problems and the allegedly minor nature of his
violations. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the
circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th
Cir. 2007) (“A violator who, after committing an offense and being placed on
supervised release for that offense, again commits a similar offense is not only
more likely to continue on that path, but also has demonstrated to the court that the
violator has little respect for its command.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --