United States v. Stanley Parks , 436 F. App'x 807 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 08 2011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. 10-10404
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00029-EHC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
STANLEY WILLIAM PARKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Stanley William Parks appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed
following revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
*
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).
Parks first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
adequately explain or sufficiently identify compelling reasons for its sentence.
This contention is belied by the record.
Parks also contends that the district court procedurally erred by imposing the
sentence under the mistaken belief that United States v. Knight, 580 F.3d 933 (9th
Cir. 2009), required a 24-month sentence. Any error was harmless because the
district court indicated that it would impose the same sentence regardless of the
holding in Knight. See United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 987 (9th Cir.
2006) (procedural error reviewed for harmless error).
Parks finally contends that he was denied the right of allocution. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). Contrary to his contention, Parks was afforded the right of
allocution, where he had an opportunity to make a statement before the court made
its final judgment. See United States v. Laverne, 963 F.2d 235, 237 (9th Cir. 1992)
(no violation where the “court was able to consider the defendant's statement and
was free to alter its view of the sentence if the defendant offered a sufficient reason
for changing its view[]”).
Parks motion for judicial notice of a document attached as an addendum to
his reply brief is denied.
2 10-10404
The United States’ motion to strike the addendum and portions of the reply
brief is granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-10404