NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 27 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-538 D.C. No. 3:18-cr-00458-AN-1 Plaintiff - Appellee, District of Oregon, Portland v. MEMORANDUM* BRANDON ROSS LINDER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Adrienne C. Nelson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Brandon Ross Linder appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his

supervised release and challenges the nine-month sentence imposed upon

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

Linder first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

* 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). provide an adequate explanation for the sentence and failing to consider his

arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence. We review for plain error, see United

States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and conclude that there is

none. The record reflects that the district court listened to Linder’s arguments but

concluded that the within-Guidelines sentence was warranted. The district court’s

explanation, in light of the record as a whole, is sufficient to allow for meaningful

appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en

banc).

Linder further contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable in

light of his progress and the rehabilitative goals of supervised release. We

disagree. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

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

Linder’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007)

(purpose of a revocation sentence is to sanction the defendant’s breach of the

court’s trust).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-538