United States of America v. Holyan Carl Massey

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
HOLYAN CARL MASSEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10439
D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00196-PGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Holyan Carl Massey appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
Massey contends that his statutory maximum sentence is substantively
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10439 2
unreasonable. He argues that the district court gave too much weight to the degree
of his intoxication at the time of his arrest, which is not the conduct that triggered
the revocation of his supervised release. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing Massey’s sentence. See United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of Massey’s history,
his repeated breaches of the court’s trust, and the need to protect the public. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
To the extent Massey argues that the district court erred by imposing the 24-
month sentence for the purpose of rehabilitation, in violation of United States v.
Grant, 664 F.3d 276 (9th Cir. 2011), the record reflects that the court did not
impose sentence for this purpose.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --