United States v. Hammarlund , 224 F. App'x 644 ( 2007 )

MEMORANDUM ^**

Roger Hammarlund appeals the eighteen-month sentence that the district court imposed after he admitted violating the terms and conditions of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.

The district court acted properly when it imposed a sentence outside the recommended three-to-nine-month range contained in the Chapter 7 policy statements of the Sentencing Guidelines.¹ The district court explicitly considered the policy statements and imposed a sentence less than the statutory maximum.² The district court also satisfied the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553 when it explicitly stated its reasons for imposing a sentence outside the Guidelines-recommended range.³

The district court did not plainly err when it discussed information regarding an ex parte conversation at Hammarlund’s sentencing.⁴ The court’s discussion of the ex parte conversation did not substantially affect Hammarlund’s rights. The court relied upon other grounds that independently and sufficiently supported Hammarlund’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1 . See United States v. Tadeo, 222 F.3d 623, 625-26 (9th Cir.2000) ("[A] policy statement setting forth a suggested sentencing range may be freely rejected by a district court without abusing its discretion, if the sentence actually imposed is within the statutory maximum.”).

2 . See United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir.2000).

3 . See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1279 (9th Cir.2006). Title 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), which concerns revocations of supervised release, includes a requirement that the court consider some of the § 3553(a) factors prior to revocation.

4 . See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733-35, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (noting that in order to show plain error, the defendant must show: (1) that there was an error, (2) that the error was plain or obvious, and (3) that it affected substantial rights).