United States v. Jason Jennen

MEMORANDUM

Jason Lee Jennen appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the nine-month custodial term and the 25-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Jennen contends that the district court erred procedurally by (1) presuming that a within-Guidelines sentence was reasonable; (2) failing to explain adequately why it rejected the sentencing recommendations of both parties in favor of the sentence selected; and (3) relying improperly upon rehabilitation in selecting a sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103 , 1108 & n. 3 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The record reflects that the district court did not presume the reasonableness of a within-Guidelines sentence and that it considered the arguments of both parties and adequately explained its reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Furthermore, the record reflects that the court considered Jennen’s need and desire for rehabilitation in the appropriate context of evaluating the need for a supervised release…