United States v. 2020-08-11 | 19-10325 | USA V. KEVIN HICKMAN | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KEVIN DUANE HICKMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-10325

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00246-MCE-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Kevin Duane Hickman appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon the second revocation of his
supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hickman contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on

*
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

AUG 11 2020

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

2 19-10325
improper sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), namely, the seriousness of
his new criminal conduct and the need to promote respect for the law. We review
unpreserved claims of procedural error for plain error, see United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there
is none. The district court’s explanation reflects that it permissibly considered
Hickman’s ongoing poor performance on supervised release, which had been
revoked once before, and mentioned his new offenses in connection with its
consideration of Hickman’s significant criminal history. See United States v.
Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court may consider the
seriousness of the offenses underlying the revocation “to a lesser degree as part of
the criminal history of the violator”).
Hickman also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The
district court did not abuse its discretion by 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, Hickman’s
criminal history and performance on supervision. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51;
Simtob, 485 F.3d at 1062-63.
AFFIRMED.