United States v. Daryl Marshall

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50426
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-cr-01821-BEN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DARYL KEITH MARSHALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Daryl Keith Marshall appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 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).
Marshall contends that the district court erred by failing to provide him with
an opportunity to be heard regarding whether his violation warranted revocation of
his supervised release. Contrary to Marshall’s contention, the denial of the right of
allocution is not a “structural error” warranting automatic reversal. See Boardman
v. Estelle, 957 F.2d 1523, 1530 (9th Cir. 1992). Rather, we review for plain error,
see United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 2008), and find none.
The record reflects that, in light of his multiple prior violations, the district court
rejected Marshall’s request to be placed back on supervised release. Accordingly,
Marshall has not shown a reasonable probability that, but for the alleged error, the
district court would have determined that revocation was unwarranted. See United
States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2004).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50426