United States of America v. Clifford Brigham, a.k.a. Cleburne Brigham, a.k.a. Clifford J. Brigham

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CLIFFORD BRIGHAM, a.k.a. Cleburne
Brigham, a.k.a. Clifford J. Brigham,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 18-10132
18-10138
D.C. Nos. 1:17-cr-00308-LJO
1:17-cr-00309-LJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Clifford Brigham appeals the 36-month and
24-month consecutive sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Brigham first contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying
* 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
JAN 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-10132 & 18-10138
on a prohibited sentencing consideration—the need to punish—in imposing the
statutory maximum sentence in each case. He also contends that the district court
failed to explain the sentences adequately. We review for plain error, see United
States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and conclude that there is
none. The record demonstrates that the district court imposed the sentences after
considering Brigham’s history and characteristics and not to punish Brigham. See
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Moreover, the district court adequately explained its reasons
for imposing above-Guidelines sentences. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d
984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Brigham next contends that the sentences are substantively unreasonable in
light of his age and health. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Brigham’s sentences are substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of
the circumstances, including Brigham’s history and breach of the court’s trust. See
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1182.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --