United States v. Darryl Depastino , 695 F. App'x 268 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50478
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01303-SJO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DARRYL JOHN DEPASTINO, a.k.a.
Darryl J. De Pastino, a.k.a. Darryl
Depastino, a.k.a. David A. Depastino, a.k.a.
David Allen Depastino, a.k.a. Darryl R.
Johnson, a.k.a. Edward Robert Johnson,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Darryl John Depastino appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Depastino contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on
unsupported assumptions regarding his methadone usage and its impact on his
ability to participate in a residential drug treatment program. We review for plain
error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and conclude that there was none. Contrary to Depastino’s contention, the
court’s factual findings are supported by the record. See United States v. Graf, 610
F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical,
implausible, or without support in the record.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50478