United States of America v. Chanci Linn Morrison

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHANCI LINN MORRISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-30085
D.C. No. 6:13-cr-00016-CCL-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Charles C. Lovell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Chanci Linn Morrison appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 11-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Morrison contends that the district court improperly relied on rehabilitation
* 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 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-30085
in selecting her sentence, thereby imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence.
The record does not support Morrison’s argument. While the probation officer
described to the court the treatment opportunities that would be available to
Morrison in prison, the record shows that the court did not impermissibly impose
or lengthen the sentence to promote Morrison’s rehabilitation. See Tapia v. United
States, 564 U.S. 319, 334 (2011) (a court “commits no error by discussing the
opportunities for rehabilitation within prison” as long as it does not base the
sentence on rehabilitation). Rather, the court relied on proper considerations,
including Morrison’s history on supervision and the need to afford adequate
deterrence, in selecting the sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v.
Simtob 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (determining that a violator who, after
being placed on supervised release for an offense, commits a similar offense may
require greater sanctions to deter future criminal activity). Moreover, the within-
Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the
circumstances, including the nature of Morrison’s violations and her two previous
revocations. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --