United States v. Johnson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-3919 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:23-cr-00011-SPG-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC LAMONT JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-3923 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:23-cr-00012-SPG-1 v. ERIC LAMONT JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Sherilyn Peace Garnett, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 17, 2025** * 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). Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Eric Lamont Johnson appeals from the district court’s judgments and challenges the 14-month concurrent sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Johnson contends that his sentences are substantively unreasonable in light of the 8-month recommendation by the government and probation, and other mitigating circumstances. We review this claim for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentences, which are substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the violation and Johnson’s history of poor performance on supervision. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). AFFIRMED. 2 24-3919 & 24-3923