United States v. Marcus Arrington

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10170
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00023-SOM-1
v.
MARCUS XAVIER ARRINGTON, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Marcus Xavier Arrington appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 12-month sentence and one special condition of supervised release
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 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).
Arrington contends that the district court erred by imposing the revocation
sentence to punish him for the criminal conduct underlying the revocation, and to
promote respect for the law. We review for plain error, see United States v.
Burgum, 633 F.3d 810, 812 (9th Cir. 2011), and conclude that there is none. The
record reflects that the district court relied on only proper sentencing factors,
including Arrington’s poor history on supervision, the need to afford adequate
deterrence, and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United
States v. Simtob 485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).
Arrington also challenges the special condition of supervised release that
requires him to obtain permission from his probation officer before having any
“direct contact” with minors under the age of 18. He maintains the condition is not
reasonably related to his offense of conviction and is overbroad. The district court
did not abuse its discretion or run afoul of the Constitution. See United States v.
Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard). As an initial
matter, Arrington has not identified any familial relationship that would be
impacted by this condition. Furthermore, the condition is reasonably related to the
protection of the public and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is
reasonably necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), (2); United States v. Watson,
582 F.3d at 983-85.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-10170