United States of America v. ANDREW LAUD BARNETT, AKA Anthony Andrew Delrossey

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDREW LAUD BARNETT, AKA
Anthony Andrew Delrossey,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 23-1078
23-1082
23-1081
D.C. Nos. 3:12-cr-00441-HZ-1
3:08-cr-00165-HZ-1
3:11-cr-00386-HZ-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernández, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 12, 2023**
Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Andrew Laud Barnett appeals from the district
court’s judgments and challenges the aggregate sentence imposed upon the second
revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
* 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
DEC 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-1078
We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
During the pendency of this appeal, Barnett completed his term of
imprisonment. Because Barnett is not serving a term of supervised release in
Appeal Nos. 23-1082 and 23-1081, these appeals are moot. See United States v.
King, 891 F.3d 868, 869-70 (9th Cir. 2018).
In Appeal No. 23-1078, Barnett contends that the district court procedurally
erred by failing to consider his arguments and adequately explain its sentencing
decision. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608
F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record
reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and
Barnett’s arguments for a time-served sentence, and sufficiently explained that the
five-month sentence was warranted in light of Barnett’s repeated failure to comply
with the terms of his supervision despite repeated admonishments by the court.
See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Moreover, the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
§ 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Barnett’s repeated
breaches of the court’s trust, his history and characteristics, and the need for
deterrence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
We do not reach Barnett’s argument that the district court relied on an
impermissible sentencing factor, which he raised for the first time in his reply

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-1078
brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Appeal Nos. 23-1081 and 23-1082 DISMISSED;
Appeal No. 23-1078 AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --