
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Joseph SCHWINDT, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 17-30078, 17-30079
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 21, 2017
    
      Jared Charles Cobell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USGF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    Andrew J. Nelson, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana (Missoula) Missou-la, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Donald Joseph Schwindt appeals the seven-month concurrent sentences imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Schwindt argues that the district court erred when it determined that he had violated supervised release by committing criminal trespass under Montana Code Annotated section 45-6-203. He contends that this error resulted in a substantively unreasonable sentence. The government rightly concedes that, because it presented no evidence that the land was posted, it did not establish that Schwindt had criminally trespassed. See State v. Trujillo, 342 Mont. 319, 180 P.3d 1153, 1156 (2008). We nevertheless affirm.

Schwindt admits that the court correctly calculated the Guidelines range on the basis of his commission of another Grade C violation. There is no evidence in the record that the district court relied upon the trespass violation in reaching its sentencing decision. Instead, the court found that the seven-month sentence was appropriate because of Schwindt’s repeated failure to abide by the terms of his supervised release despite his probation officer’s guidance. Under these circumstances, the court’s error with respect to the trespassing violation was harmless. Moreover, the below-Guidelines. sentence was substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     