United States v. 2020-07-23 | 20-30003 | USA V. LEONARD CATTERLIN | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LEONARD FRANK CATTERLIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-30003

D.C. No. 9:18-cr-00031-DLC-3

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Leonard Frank Catterlin appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the eight-month sentence imposed upon his second revocation of
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Catterlin contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because he

*
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 23 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 20-30003
needs community-based treatment rather than incarceration. The district court did
not abuse its discretion in imposing the within-Guidelines sentence. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in
light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances,
including, as the district court highlighted, Catterlin’s repeated violations of
supervised release. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d
1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). To the extent Catterlin contends that the court
impermissibly imposed the sentence to punish him, the record reflects that the
district court relied on only proper sentencing factors. See Simtob, 485 F.3d at
1062.
AFFIRMED.