United States of America v. Dustin T. Perrin

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DUSTIN T. PERRIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 13-30228
13-30230
D.C. Nos. 2:07-cr-00081-FVS
2:12-cr-00075-FVS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2014 **
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Dustin T. Perrin appeals from two consecutive
sentences of one year and a day imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Perrin contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain
FILED
APR 11 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

adequately the sentences imposed. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and find none. The record reflects
that the court heard Perrin’s arguments and imposed the consecutive sentences as a
sanction for Perrin’s breach of trust. See id. at 1182. Moreover, Perrin has not
shown a reasonable probability that he would have received a different sentence
had the district court provided a more thorough explanation of the sentence. See
United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008).
Perrin next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light
of the mitigating factors, including his drug addiction, and because the district
court put undue weight on the need to protect the public. The district court did not
abuse its discretion in imposing Perrin’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines consecutive sentences are substantively
reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, and the totality of
the circumstances, including Perrin’s repeated violations of supervised release. See
id.; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion
of the district court.”).
AFFIRMED.
13-30228 & 13-30230 2

-- 2 of 2 --