United States v. Aly Conteh ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10486
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cr-50127-GMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ALY AZIZ CONTEH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Aly Aziz Conteh appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 12-month sentence imposed upon 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).
Conteh contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) violating
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3) by failing to resolve an alleged factual
dispute concerning his previous contacts with police, (2) improperly considering
his state prison disciplinary infractions, and (3) failing to explain adequately the
sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d
1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), and find none. Assuming, without deciding, that Rule
32(i)(3) applies to revocation of supervised release proceedings, Conteh has failed
to show that the disputed facts played any role in the district court’s sentencing
decision. See United States v. Saeteurn, 504 F.3d 1175, 1181 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rule
32(i)(3)(B) “is limited to factual disputes which affect the temporal term of the
sentence the district court imposes”). Further, any consideration of Conteh’s state
prison disciplinary infractions by the district court was not error. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1) (district court shall consider defendant’s history and characteristics at
sentencing). The district court also sufficiently explained the above-Guidelines
sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-10486