United States v. Leroy Mack , 614 F. App'x 880 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                  FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                   JUN 11 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 14-10192
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:00-cr-00076-PMP-RJJ-
    1
    v.
    LEROY ROOSEVELT MACK,                            MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Philip M. Pro, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 9, 2015**
    San Francisco, California
    Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    Leroy Roosevelt Mack (“Mack”) appeals the length of his supervised release
    after a revocation of supervised release, as well as a condition placed on his
    supervised release. Because Mack did not object to either the length or the
    *
    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).
    condition at sentencing, we review for plain error. United States v. Chhun, 
    744 F.3d 1110
    , 1123 (9th Cir. 2014). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
    and we affirm.
    Mack argues that the district court did not adequately explain the reason for
    its chosen sentence. The district court imposed an additional length of supervised
    release after revocation that was within the Guidelines. A sentence that is within
    the Guidelines “often needs little explanation.” United States v. Vasquez-Perez,
    
    742 F.3d 896
    , 900 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    , 992
    (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). The district court specifically referenced the applicable
    factors laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not plainly err.
    Mack also argues that the district court improperly lengthened his sentence
    in order to promote rehabilitation in violation of Tapia v. United States, 
    131 S. Ct. 2382
    , 2391 (2011) and United States v. Grant, 
    664 F.3d 276
    , 280–81 (9th Cir.
    2011). Although the district court did mention the need for “corrective treatment,”
    the reference was made in the context of considering the length of both the prison
    sentence and the supervised release. Tapia and Grant apply only to the length of a
    prison sentence, not the length of supervised release. There was no plain error in
    the district court mentioning the need for corrective treatment when considering
    the length of supervised release.
    2
    Finally, Mack argues that the district court plainly erred in imposing a
    condition of no contact with the victim of his domestic abuse for four months after
    his release from custody. Mack was released from custody on October 30, 2014.
    Thus, the four months have already passed, and this issue is moot. See, e.g.,
    Mujahid v. Daniels, 
    413 F.3d 991
    , 994 (9th Cir. 2005).
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-10192

Citation Numbers: 614 F. App'x 880

Filed Date: 6/11/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023