UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. VIELLE, No. 23-679 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DASHANE WARREN VIELLE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-679 D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00060-RMP-1 Eastern District of Washington, Spokane MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 14, 2023** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Dashane Warren Vielle appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 14-month term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Vielle contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In his view, * 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). (1) the district court should not have imposed a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range because his supervised release violations were “technical” and were driven by his drug withdrawal symptoms, (2) the Sentencing Guidelines are too punitive and result in overincarceration, and (3) he had no prior violent federal offenses. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Vielle’s state criminal record and history on federal supervision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 23-679

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.