UNITED STATES v. CLAUSCHEE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-23No. No. 21-10016

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the 16-month sentence, concluding that the district court properly converted the unserved residential reentry center time to imprisonment and provided sufficient explanation for its sentencing decision.

Robinson Clauschee appealed a 16-month sentence imposed after his sixth revocation of supervised release. Clauschee argued that the district court improperly converted an unserved 180-day community confinement requirement at a residential reentry center into equivalent prison time under the sentencing guidelines. The appellate court rejected this argument, finding that the community confinement condition had been imposed as part of an earlier supervised release revocation sentence, making it properly convertible under the applicable guideline provision.

Clauschee also claimed the district court failed to adequately explain its sentencing rationale. The court reviewed this claim for plain error and found none, concluding that the record demonstrated the judge had considered the relevant statutory factors and the parties' arguments. The sentence itself was found to be reasonable given Clauschee's pattern of breaching the court's conditions.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a residential reentry center condition from a prior supervised release revocation can be converted to imprisonment time
Whether the sentencing guidelines allow such conversion when the condition was not in the original conviction judgment
Whether the district court adequately explained its sentencing rationale

Procedural posture

Clauschee appealed the district court's 16-month sentence imposed upon his sixth revocation of supervised release.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Robinson Clauschee appeals from the district courts order and challenges the 16-month sentence imposed upon his sixth revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Clauschee contends that the district court erred by converting his unserved 180-day period of community confinement at a residential reentry center (“RRC”) to an equivalent length of imprisonment under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(d). We need not resolve the parties’ dispute regarding the applicable standard of review because this claim fails under any standard of review. Clauschee contends that application of § 7B1.3(d) was improper because the RRC condition was not imposed in his underlying judgment of conviction and it lacks a “connection” to the offense conduct that formed the basis of that conviction. This argument is unpersuasive.

The district court imposed the condition that Clauschee reside at an RRC for 180 days as part of the sentence for Clauschees fifth revocation of supervised release. It is undisputed that Clauschee never reported to the RRC and that his term of supervision was revoked on this basis in the instant case. On this record, we conclude that the RRC condition was “imposed in connection with the sentence for which revocation was ordered,” and the district court, therefore, properly adjusted the sentence to account for Clauschees unserved period of community confinement. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(d).

Clauschee also contends that the court failed to explain its reasons for imposing the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and conclude there is none. The record reflects that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C § 3583(e) factors and the parties’ arguments and, given the record as a whole, provided a sufficient explanation. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Clauschees numerous breaches of the courts trust. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.