United States of America v. Curtis Baker, a.k.a. Middleman

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CURTIS BAKER, a.k.a. Middleman,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50070
D.C. No. 5:03-cr-00002-VAP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Curtis Baker appeals from the 24-month prison sentence and three-year term
of supervised release imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-50070 2
Baker contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the
district court impermissibly focused on the seriousness of his underlying drug
conviction and did not consider his various mitigating factors. These contentions
fail. The district court considered the proper factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e), and, under the totality of circumstances, the sentence is reasonable. See
United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A] district court
may properly look to and consider the conduct underlying the revocation as one of
many acts contributing to the severity of the violator’s breach of trust so as not to
preclude a full review of the violator’s history and the violator’s likelihood of
repeating that history.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --