United States of America v. Michael Paul Grindall

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 PAUL GRINDALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10291
D.C. No. 4:10-cr-03090-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Michael Paul Grindall appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 46-month sentence imposed following the revocation of probation.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Grindall contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
FILED
JUN 24 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10291 2
adequately explain the sentence or expressly state the applicable sentencing range
under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-
Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The district court
discussed at length its justification for the sentence and Grindall has not shown a
reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence had the
court expressly stated the applicable sentencing range. See United States v.
Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
Grindall also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable
because the district court based the sentence on statements it made when it
originally imposed a sentence of probation. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing Grindall’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.
Finally, Grindall also contends that his sentence was disproportionate to the
violation and therefore violated the Eighth Amendment. This contention lacks
merit. See United States v. Parker, 241 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 2001)
(“Generally, as long as the sentence imposed on a defendant does not exceed
statutory limits, this court will not overturn it on Eighth Amendment grounds.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --