The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-10273•United States of America v. Edison Brady, a.k.a. Brady Edison
13-10273Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 27, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDISON BRADY, a.k.a. Brady Edison,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10273
D.C. No. 3:92-cr-00387-DGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 18, 2014***
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Edison Brady appeals from the 45-month sentence imposed upon revocation
of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
FILED
FEB 27 2014
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 Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew, Senior United States District Judge
for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-- 1 of 2 --
affirm.
Brady contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain
adequately the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel,
444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and find none. The district court sufficiently
explained the sentence. See United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.
2000) (finding of danger to community sufficient under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2)).
Brady next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
it was based primarily upon the need to punish him for his conduct, an
impermissible sentencing factor in a supervised release revocation proceeding.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Brady’s sentence. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The record does not support Brady’s
argument that the district court imposed a 45-month sentence to punish him. The
above-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
Brady’s dangerousness to the community and repeated violations of supervised
release. See id.
AFFIRMED.
13-10273 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.