United States v. John Leland , 671 F. App'x 695 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30026
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00031-JLQ
v. MEMORANDUM*
JOHN EARL LELAND,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
John Earl Leland appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the ten-year supervised release term imposed following his guilty-plea conviction
for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
*
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).
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii), and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Leland contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
calculate the Guidelines range for the supervised release term, and by failing to
explain the ten-year term adequately. We review for plain error, see United States
v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1008 (9th Cir. 2010), and hold that there is
none. Even if the court erred, there is no reasonable probability that it would have
imposed a different term absent the error. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d
755, 762 (9th Cir. 2008). The court considered the parties’ joint recommendation
for a five-year supervised term, which is the high end of the Guidelines range, and
concluded that it was insufficient. It is clear from the record that the court believed
that a ten-year term was necessary in light of Leland’s lengthy criminal history.
See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (adequate
explanation can be inferred from the record).
Leland also contends that the ten-year term of supervised release is
substantively unreasonable. The court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The supervised release term is
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and
2 16-30026
the totality of the circumstances, including Leland’s criminal record. See Gall, 552
U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-30026