United States of America v. Jason Lee Jennen

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASON LEE JENNEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-30016
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00081-LRS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 16, 2013 **
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Jason Lee Jennen appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the nine-month custodial term and the 25-month term of supervised release
imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jennen contends that the district court erred procedurally by (1) presuming
FILED
OCT 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

that a within-Guidelines sentence was reasonable; (2) failing to explain adequately
why it rejected the sentencing recommendations of both parties in favor of the
sentence selected; and (3) relying improperly upon rehabilitation in selecting a
sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608
F.3d 1103, 1108 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The record reflects that the
district court did not presume the reasonableness of a within-Guidelines sentence
and that it considered the arguments of both parties and adequately explained its
reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc). Furthermore, the record reflects that the court considered
Jennen’s need and desire for rehabilitation in the appropriate context of evaluating
the need for a supervised release term, rather than in determining whether to
impose a prison term or the length of that term. See United States v. Grant, 664
F.3d 276, 280, 282 (9th Cir. 2011).
Jennen also argues that the overall sentence is substantively unreasonable.
We review for abuse of discretion, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007), and find none. The sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light
of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors, including
the need to deter and to protect the public. See id.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --