United States v. Rian Breidenbach

facts underlying those violations, including the general dates of Breidenbach’s

violations, the location where they occurred, and the specific conduct involved. This

information was sufficient to provide Breidenbach notice of the facts the court would

consider at sentencing. See United States v. Tham, 884 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir.

1989). The probation officer’s reference at the revocation hearing to Breidenbach’s

treatment failures does not implicate Breidenbach’s notice rights. Instead, the record

reflects that the court rested its sentencing decision on the similarity between the

manner and content of Breidenbach’s supervised release violations and the conduct

underlying Breidenbach’s original conviction and the recency of the violations to

Breidenbach’s commencement of supervised release. These facts were described in

sufficient detail in Breidenbach’s revocation petition to satisfy due process and Rule

2 32.1. Id. Further, we discern no indication in the record that the court would have

reduced its sentence had the probation officer declined to mention Breidenbach’s

treatment failures at the sentencing hearing. Rather, the district court premised its

sentence on…