United States v. William Jerome , 486 F. App'x 681 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 30 2012
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. 11-30171
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-5844-RJB-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
WILLIAM FITZGERALD JEROME,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2012 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: TASHIMA, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
William Jerome appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for
reconsideration of his probation revocation. At the revocation hearing, the district
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
court found that Jerome had committed four instances of domestic violence, which
violated the conditions of his probation. After the hearing, Jerome received notice
that a state agency investigating two of the four incidents declined to file charges,
citing insufficient evidence. Jerome moved for reconsideration based on the
agency’s decision. The district court reviewed the new evidence and denied the
motion. Jerome contends that the district court applied the wrong standard on
reconsideration and erred in denying his motion to reconsider.
We review the district court’s decision to deny the motion for
reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th
Cir. 2001). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We need not decide whether the district court applied the wrong standard in
deciding the motion for reconsideration because denial of the motion would be
justified under any of the standards proposed by the parties. The district court
considered Jerome’s evidence and concluded that it would not have changed the
court’s ultimate decision. This conclusion was entirely reasonable: the state
agency report dealt with only two of the four alleged instances of domestic abuse
on which the revocation was based – those against Jerome’s son. The report did
not address the other two instances – those against Jerome’s wife – that also
provided a sufficient basis to revoke Jerome’s probation.
2
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jerome’s motion for
reconsideration. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261 (9th Cir.
2009) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
3