United States v. 2020-03-12 | 19-30180 | USA V. AARON CARVER | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

AARON DALE CARVER,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-30180

D.C. No. 3:17-cr-05213-RBL-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Aaron Dale Carver appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 10-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Carver contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

*
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

MAR 12 2020

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

2 19-30180
calculate the Guidelines range before imposing the sentence. The district court did
not plainly err. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th
Cir. 2010). The record reflects that the court was aware of the undisputed
Guidelines range, which was contained in the probation officer’s memorandum and
discussed during the revocation hearing, and used that range as the benchmark
from which it varied downward. To the extent Carver argues that the Guidelines
range was incorrectly calculated, he cannot show plain error. The initial petition to
revoke alleged a single violation of supervised release in connection with Carver’s
violations of state law, including his making of felonious threats to kill. Those
threats were discussed during the revocation hearing, and Carver effectively
admitted to making them. This record supports the probation officer’s
recommendation that Carver’s conduct constituted a Grade B violation, and Carver
has not shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a lower
sentence had the court made express findings as to the grade of the violation and
the resulting Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(2) & cmt. n.1; United
States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.