UNITED STATES v. CARREON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-29No. No. 20-10103

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's revocation of supervised release and the imposed sentence, finding sufficient evidence of willful restitution nonpayment and determining the sentence substantively reasonable under applicable law.

Abel Martin Carreon appealed a district court's decision to revoke his supervised release and impose a one-month prison sentence followed by 35 months of supervised release. Carreon challenged the revocation on two grounds: that insufficient evidence showed his failure to pay restitution was willful, and that his sentence was unreasonably harsh given his otherwise compliant behavior and the allegedly minor nature of the violation.

The appellate court upheld the district court's decisions on both issues. Reviewing the evidence in a light favorable to the government, the court found that probation officer testimony and other evidence adequately demonstrated that Carreon's nonpayment was willful rather than inadvertent. The court also rejected the argument that the sentence was substantively unreasonable, finding that the punishment was appropriate under federal sentencing guidelines and factors, particularly considering that Carreon had breached the court's trust.

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

Key issues

Sufficiency of evidence for willful violation of restitution payment conditions
Substantive reasonableness of sentence imposed upon supervised release revocation
Abuse of discretion standard in revocation proceedings

Procedural posture

Carreon appealed from the district court's revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a one-month sentence with an additional 35-month supervised release term.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Abel Martin Carreon appeals from the district courts judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a one-month sentence and 35-month term of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Carreon first contends that there was insufficient evidence to establish that his failure to make restitution payments was willful. In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a supervised release revocation, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and ask whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). The evidence presented at the revocation hearing, including testimony from Carreons probation officers, was sufficient to support the district courts finding that Carreons actions were willful. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking supervised release. See United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2008).

Carreon also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because he was otherwise compliant with the terms of his supervision and his violation was allegedly minor. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence and supervised release term are substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Carreons breach of the courts trust. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief. See United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.