United States v. Steven Birdsbill ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              OCT 28 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 10-30048
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00113-SEH
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    S. T. B.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Montana
    Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted October 19, 2010 **
    Before:        O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    Appellant, a juvenile, appeals from the sentence imposed following his true-
    plea to an act of juvenile delinquency, pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 5031
    , that
    constituted burglary, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1153
    (a), (b). Appellant was
    sentenced to official detention for 16 months and to supervision following his
    *
    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).
    release from official detention until his nineteenth birthday. We have jurisdiction
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    Appellant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by
    failing to consider the least restrictive environment and the rehabilitative needs of
    the appellant. See United States v. Juvenile, 
    347 F.3d 778
    , 787 (9th Cir. 2003).
    The district court’s determination that a period of detention was necessary to
    accomplish rehabilitation was not an abuse of discretion. Nor did the district court
    abuse its discretion by selecting a 16-month term, based on its determination that
    this term was necessary in order for appellant to participate in and complete the
    necessary rehabilitative programming.
    Appellant’s request that we remand to a different district court judge is
    denied as moot.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      10-30048
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-30048

Filed Date: 10/28/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021