United States of America v. Jerry Danny Hanks

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERRY DANNY HANKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-10303
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01180-JAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted June 25, 2014***
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jerry Danny Hanks appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed upon
revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
FILED
JUN 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew, Senior United States District Judge
for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

and we affirm.
Hanks contends that the district court procedurally erred by imposing the
maximum term of imprisonment to punish him for his underlying crime and his
multiple violations of supervised release. He also argues that the court failed to
consider the mitigating circumstance of his hip condition, and did not adequately
explain the above-Guideline sentence. We review for plain error, see United States
v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and find none. The
record reflects that the district court was aware of the Guidelines range and Hank’s
mitigating arguments, and did not impose sentence to punish Hanks, but rather on
the basis of Hank’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust. See United States v.
Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007) (at a revocation sentencing, the
court may sanction the violator for his breach of the court’s trust). Furthermore,
the court adequately explained the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d
984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
13-10303 2

-- 2 of 2 --