United States v. Juvenile Male , 411 F. App'x 88 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 20 2011
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. 10-10015
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00923-CKJ-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JUVENILE MALE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 10, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SCHROEDER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant L.F. challenges the district court’s disposition for L.F.’s violation
of his probation. L.F. contends that the district court abused its discretion in
ordering L.F. to continue his probation for a period of twelve to eighteen months at
a Montana treatment center located 1,200 miles from his home and family.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The district court did not abuse its discretion, as it properly weighed the
requisite factors in deciding that L.F.’s rehabilitative needs could not be served by
placement in local treatment programs. The district court extensively considered
L.F.’s separation from his family and the psychological evaluation in the record.
In sum, the district court “provide[d] a reasoned basis for why it . . . rejected less
restrictive interventions.” United States v. Juvenile Male, 347 F.3d 778, 788 (9th
Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).1
The district court’s continuation of L.F.’s probation for sixty months
comported with the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act’s requirements. See id. at
784. L.F. was not entitled to any credit for his pretrial detention relative to his
probation, as he was not sentenced to imprisonment. See United States v. Sullivan,
504 F.3d 969, 971 (9th Cir. 2007) (observing that “detention at a community
treatment center, where the defendant is not subject to the control of the Bureau of
Prisons, is not imprisonment”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
1
We deny Appellee’s January 6, 2011, Emergency Motion Under Ninth
Circuit Rule 27-3: To Vacate Oral Argument Scheduled For January 10, 2011,
Because Case Has Become Moot. Because L.F.’s probation was continued for
sixty months and the district court has not determined that L.F. has completed the
treatment program, this appeal is not moot as we can “grant . . . effectual relief . . .
in favor of the appellant.” Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted).
2
Because the district court retained ultimate authority over L.F.’s sentence
and the monitoring of L.F.’s rehabilitative progress, the district court did not
impermissibly delegate authority to the probation officer and the treatment center’s
staff in determining L.F’s compliance with the probation conditions. See United
States v. Stephens, 424 F.3d 876, 882 (9th Cir. 2005); see also United States v.
Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 619 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
3