9th Circuit affirms sentence imposed in ‘ice’ case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the seven-year-and-one-month sentence imposed by the federal court on a woman who was convicted of possessing “ice” with intent to distribute and for violating probation conditions.

The Ninth Circuit determined that the U.S. District Court for the NMI followed sentencing guidelines and their rationale in running defendant Julita Aldan Sablan’s sentence consecutively, in order to ensure that Sablan was “punished both for breaching the court’s trust and for the new criminal conduct, as each act is separately and distinctively offensive.”

The district court properly noted that Sablan had committed the same offense for which she was already on supervised release, according to the Ninth Circuit judges in their decision issued Wednesday.

The Ninth Circuit judges said that that factor was relevant because a “violator who, after committing an offense and being placed on supervised release for that offense, again commits a similar offense is not only more likely to continue on that path, but also has demonstrated to the court that the violator has little respect for its command.”

“The court’s explanation makes clear that it appropriately considered Sablan’s underlying offense in order to calculate the likelihood of recidivism and evaluate the scope of the breach of trust,” the Ninth Circuit judges said.

In November 2010, U.S. District Court for the NMI designated judge Mark W. Bennett sentenced Sablan to 70 months in prison for possession of “ice” with intent to distribute and 15 months for violating supervised release conditions.

The judge ordered that the sentences will be served consecutively for a total of 85 months (seven years and one month).

It was Sablan’s third conviction.

Sablan, through counsel George Anthony Long, appealed to the Ninth Circuit to reverse the sentence.

In affirming the sentence, the Ninth Circuit judges pointed out that it was substantively reasonable. The Ninth Circuit judges said that Bennett’s decision not to award a larger downward variance based on the alleged failure of the U.S. Probation Office to provide greater rehabilitation assistance does not approach a “clear error of judgment.”

The Ninth Circuit judges said the application of the career criminal enhancement to Sablan was also reasonable.

The judges said the career offender enhancement is not reserved for “major dealers” and Sablan’s below guideline sentence “cannot be deemed unreasonable when her prior felony offenses bring her within the guidelines as a career offender.”

Further, the Ninth Circuit judges noted, Bennett did reduce Sablan’s sentence to reflect the unusually low quantity of drugs at issue.