United States v. Mark Steffen
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Mark Robert Steffen appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Steffen contends that the district court erred by relying on improper factors in making its sentencing decision. We review for plain error, see United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.2009), and find none. The record reflects that the district court properly considered the relevant sentencing factors specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (e) and did not impose the sentence on the basis of any improper factor. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1181-82 (9th Cir.2006).
Steffen also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Steffen’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586 , 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The 24-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Steffen’s breach of trust and the need to deter. See id.; Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1182 .