United States of America v. Ian Bradley Gallaher

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
IAN BRADLEY GALLAHER,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 23-50021
D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00472-JAK-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2023 **
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ian Bradley Gallaher appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 2-month term of imprisonment and 12-month term of home
detention imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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
OCT 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-50021
As an initial matter, we do not decide whether Gallaher is correct that he
received an above-Guidelines sentence because it does not affect the outcome.
Gallaher claims that the district court procedurally erred by (1) failing to
adequately explain the terms of imprisonments and home detention, (2) relying on
clearly erroneous facts regarding his participation in mental health treatment, and
(3) improperly basing the sentence on the seriousness of his original offense and
the need for treatment. 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 district court adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty,
520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Even assuming the court’s imposition
of home detention was subject to enhanced procedural requirements, Gallaher has
not shown that any alleged error in the court’s explanation affected his substantial
rights. See United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2013).
The district court’s remarks regarding Gallaher’s participation in mental health
treatment, moreover, were not clearly erroneous, see id. at 1103, and its references
to Gallaher’s criminal history were not improper, see United States v. Simtob, 485
F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Finally, the record belies Gallaher’s claim
that the district court imposed the sentence in order to promote his rehabilitation, in
violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011).
Gallaher lastly contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-50021
light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, however, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --