United States v. Leroy Mack , 614 F. App'x 880 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 11 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10192
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:00-cr-00076-PMP-RJJ-
1
v.
LEROY ROOSEVELT MACK, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 9, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Leroy Roosevelt Mack (“Mack”) appeals the length of his supervised release
after a revocation of supervised release, as well as a condition placed on his
supervised release. Because Mack did not object to either the length or the
*
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).
condition at sentencing, we review for plain error. United States v. Chhun, 744
F.3d 1110, 1123 (9th Cir. 2014). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
Mack argues that the district court did not adequately explain the reason for
its chosen sentence. The district court imposed an additional length of supervised
release after revocation that was within the Guidelines. A sentence that is within
the Guidelines “often needs little explanation.” United States v. Vasquez-Perez,
742 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992
(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). The district court specifically referenced the applicable
factors laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and did not plainly err.
Mack also argues that the district court improperly lengthened his sentence
in order to promote rehabilitation in violation of Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct.
2382, 2391 (2011) and United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 280–81 (9th Cir.
2011). Although the district court did mention the need for “corrective treatment,”
the reference was made in the context of considering the length of both the prison
sentence and the supervised release. Tapia and Grant apply only to the length of a
prison sentence, not the length of supervised release. There was no plain error in
the district court mentioning the need for corrective treatment when considering
the length of supervised release.
2
Finally, Mack argues that the district court plainly erred in imposing a
condition of no contact with the victim of his domestic abuse for four months after
his release from custody. Mack was released from custody on October 30, 2014.
Thus, the four months have already passed, and this issue is moot. See, e.g.,
Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
3