United States of America v. Tanisha Phelps

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TANISHA PHELPS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30205
D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00034-BLW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Tanisha Phelps appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Phelps contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-30205
explain the sentence and by failing to consider the sentencing factors. We review
for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th
Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district
court considered the sentencing factors and thoroughly explained its reasons for
imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d
984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Phelps next contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
of the minor nature of her violation. The district court did not abuse its discretion
in imposing Phelps’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
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 the
need to afford adequate deterrence and to protect the public. See Gall, 552 U.S. at
51.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --