United States v. Isaiah Follet , 410 F. App'x 26 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 13 2010
    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. 09-30432
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00024-RFC
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ISAIAH THOMAS FOLLET,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Montana
    Richard F. Cebull, Chief Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 6, 2010 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    Isaiah Thomas Follett appeals from the 60-month sentence and lifetime term
    of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for failure to
    register as a sex offender, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §2250
    (a). 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).
    Follett contends that the district court erred by imposing a sentence above
    the Guidelines range after simultaneously applying an upward departure based on
    the inadequacy of his criminal history category, and imposing an upward variance
    pursuant to the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) sentencing factors. The record reflects that the
    district court did not procedurally err and that the sentence is substantively
    reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 50-51 (2007); see also United
    States v. Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    , 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); United States v.
    Mohamed, 
    459 F.3d 979
    , 988-89 (9th Cir. 2006).
    Follett also contends that the district court’s imposition of a lifetime term of
    supervised release was unreasonable. We conclude that the district court was
    within its discretion to find that a lifetime term of supervised release was necessary
    to comply with the statutory goals of sentencing. See United States v. Daniels, 
    541 F.3d 915
    , 921-24 (9th Cir. 2008).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     09-30432
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-30432

Citation Numbers: 410 F. App'x 26

Judges: Goodwin, Rymer, Graber

Filed Date: 12/13/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024