United States of America v. Christie Staudenmayer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTIE STAUDENMAYER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-1007
D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00023-DWM-5
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Christie Staudenmayer appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed upon
her fourth revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Staudenmayer contends that her above-Guidelines sentence is substantively
* 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 1 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-1007
unreasonable in light of the abuse inflicted on her by prison officials when she was
previously incarcerated. Given this history and the nature of her supervised release
violations, Staudenmayer argues that the court should not have imposed a custodial
sentence at all, but rather sent her to an inpatient treatment facility. We review this
claim for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The district court expressed “significant concern” about Staudenmayer’s
allegations of abuse but concluded that an 18-month sentence—6 months below
what the government was requesting—was warranted in light of Staudenmayer’s
lengthy history of non-compliance. It explained that Staudenmayer had been given
“break after break after break” by probation and the court, but yet continued to
violate the terms of her supervision in myriad ways. In light of this history, which
is amply supported by the record, we cannot say that the district court abused its
discretion in imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e);
United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (purpose of a
revocation sentence is to sanction the defendant’s breach of the court’s trust).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --