United States v. Rian Breidenbach
20-30248
| 9th Cir. | Dec 10, 2021Background:
- Appellant Rian Wayne Breidenbach admitted one supervised-release violation and was found guilty of a second; district court revoked supervised release.
- The court sentenced Breidenbach to 18 months imprisonment (above the Guidelines recommendation but below the statutory maximum) followed by lifetime supervised release.
- Breidenbach appealed, arguing he lacked sufficient notice of the facts informing the revocation sentence, the court improperly considered rehabilitation, and the sentence was substantively unreasonable.
- The revocation petition identified the specific supervised-release conditions at issue and described the factual basis for the violations (general dates, location, and conduct).
- At the hearing the probation officer mentioned treatment failures; the district court relied principally on the similarity between the release violations and the conduct underlying Breidenbach’s original conviction and the recency of the violations.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding notice and Rule 32.1 were satisfied, the court did not impermissibly base the sentence on rehabilitation, and the sentence was substantively reasonable.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Breidenbach) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of notice under due process and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 | Revocation petition and hearing remarks failed to give adequate notice of facts used at sentencing | Petition contained specific terms and factual descriptions (dates, location, conduct); remarks did not expand issues | Notice satisfied; petition provided adequate detail and process was fair (de novo review) |
| Consideration of rehabilitation in sentencing (Tapia) | Court impermissibly considered rehabilitation/treatment failures when imposing prison time | Court’s remarks show focus on §3553(a) factors (nature of offense, deterrence, protection), not to lengthen sentence for rehabilitation | No impermissible consideration; sentence based on permissible §3553(a) factors |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence (Gall) | 18-month prison + lifetime supervised release was excessive | Sentence within statutory bounds; lifetime supervised release and prison term considered under Guidelines and §3583 factors | Sentence substantively reasonable; district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Havier, 155 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard for reviewing notice under due process and Rule 32.1)
- United States v. Tham, 884 F.2d 1262 (9th Cir. 1989) (revocation petition must give sufficient factual detail to provide notice)
- United States v. Ali, 620 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts may base revocation sentence on egregiousness of violation)
- Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (court may not lengthen prison term to promote rehabilitation)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentence)