United States of America v. Michael Kern Wentz

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 KERN WENTZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-50223
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-03155-WQH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges..
Michael Kern Wentz appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the nine-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised
release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

13-50223 2
Wentz contends that the district court did not give an adequate explanation
for the sentence. The record does not support this claim. The court explained that
the sentence was based upon the need to sanction Wentz’s repeated use of a
controlled substance in violation of the terms of his supervised release.
Wentz also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Wentz’s sentence. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and
the totality of the circumstances, including Wentz’s breach of the court’s trust. See
id.; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --