United States v. Marc Rideout , 356 F. App'x 963 ( 2009 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 14 2009
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. 08-50532
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00291-SVW
v.
MARC MANLY RIDEOUT, MEMORANDUM *
aka Keri Colbert,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Marc Manly Rideout appeals from the 95-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for fraudulent use of an unauthorized access
device and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) and
*
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).
JC/Research
1029(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rideout contends we should remand because the district court’s oral
sentence included ambiguous mental health conditions that differed from the
written judgment. Remand is unnecessary here because the written judgment,
which resolved the ambiguity about the district court’s imposition of mental health
treatment, prevails. See United States v. Garcia, 37 F.3d 1359, 1368 (9th Cir.
1994); see also United States v. Lopez, 258 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 2001)
(concluding that record amply supported district court’s belief that defendant
needed metal health counseling). Further, the district court reasonably concluded
that the limited disclosure of Rideout’s presentence report and/or any mental health
evaluations was necessary to facilitate his treatment and successfully monitor his
reintegration into society following his release from prison. See United States v.
Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1011 (9th Cir. 2008); Lopez, 258 F.3d at 1057.
Rideout also contends that the district court’s oral pronouncement
prohibiting him from obtaining an identification in other names conflicts with the
written judgment stating he shall not “use, for any purpose or in any manner” any
name other than Marc Manly Rideout. This contention fails. See Garcia, 37 F.3d
at 1368.
AFFIRMED.
JC/Research 2 08-50532