United States v. Brown

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-6107 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 4:21-cr-00467-JSW-1 v. MEMORANDUM* AARON PIERRE BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 21, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Aaron Pierre Brown appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 14-month sentence imposed upon the second revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Brown contends that the district court procedurally erred and imposed a * 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). substantively unreasonable sentence because it failed to consider the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553 sentencing factors and his request for treatment instead of prison, and it may have impermissibly relied on the need to promote respect for the law. We review Brown’s procedural arguments for plain error, and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). The record reflects that the district court considered Brown’s need for treatment and determined that a 14-month sentence was appropriate in light of his “aggressiveness, erratic behavior, [and] the lack of trustworthiness” while on supervised release. This explanation is sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the record does not support Brown’s contention that the district court relied on an improper factor; the court properly considered Brown’s history and characteristics, the risk he posed to probation officers and the community, and the need for deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Finally, the within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). AFFIRMED. 2 24-6107