# United States v. Ricco Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · October 1, 2014 · 584 F. App'x 862

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2739004

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricco Lee BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 1, 2014
- **Citations:** 584 F. App'x 862
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Fletcher, Rawlinson, Christen
- **Nature of suit:** Criminal
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2739004

## Opinion text

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 1 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30311

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00026-DWM

v.
MEMORANDUM*
RICCO LEE BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 23, 2014**

Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Ricco Lee Brown appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 55-month term of supervised released imposed upon revocation of supervised

release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Brown contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
sentence because the new supervised release term is greater than necessary to

satisfy the goals of sentencing. He argues that the 55-month term is punitive and

does not serve the purpose of rehabilitation. We review for abuse of discretion, see

United States v. Collins, 684 F.3d 873, 887 (9th Cir. 2012), and find none. The

supervised release term is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including

Brown’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust. See United States v. Miqbel, 444

F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (at a revocation sentencing, the court may sanction

the violator for his breach of the court’s trust).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-30311

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2739004. Public record. Not legal advice.