History
  • No items yet
midpage
United States v. Sanxay Xayadeth
680 F. App'x 625
| 9th Cir. | 2017
|
Check Treatment
|
Docket
Case Information

*1 Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Sanxay Xayadeth appeals from the district court’s judgement and challenges the 94-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

*2 The district court held a joint sentencing hearing for the instant criminal conviction and Xayadeth’s violation of supervised release. At the hearing, the district court determined that an aggregate 94-month sentence was warranted, which was composed of a 57-month sentence for the criminal conviction and a consecutive low-end 37-month sentence for the supervised release violation. Without objection from Xayadeth, however, the district court elected to impose the 94-month sentence for the criminal conviction and dismiss the supervised release violation.

Xayadeth contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the 37-month portion of the sentence that the court said reflected the supervised release violation. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there is none. The record reflects that the court sufficiently explained its sentencing determination. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Xayadeth next contends that his 94-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Xayadeth’s sentence. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) *3 factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Xayadeth’s significant criminal history. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

[*] 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).

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Sanxay Xayadeth
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date Published: Mar 14, 2017
Citation: 680 F. App'x 625
Docket Number: 16-30083
Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.