United States v. Leroy Mack

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 31 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10420
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:00-cr-00076-LDG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LEROY ROOSEVELT MACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Leroy Roosevelt Mack appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the revocation of supervised release and 14-month sentence imposed
upon revocation. 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).
Mack contends that the district court abused its discretion by revoking his
supervised release because he was not provided with adequate written notice of his
alleged violations and because there was insufficient evidence to establish the
violations by a preponderance of the evidence. These claims fail. The petition for
summons notified Mack of the conditions that he allegedly violated, along with the
dates and details of the alleged violations. This is sufficient to satisfy due process
and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. See United States v. Tham, 884 F.2d
1262, 1265 (9th Cir. 1989). Moreover, viewed in the light most favorable to the
government, the evidence was sufficient to support the district court’s finding that
Mack violated the terms of his supervised release. See United States v. King, 608
F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by revoking Mack’s supervised release. See United States v. Perez, 526
F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2008).
Mack also contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
explain the sentence adequately and by failing to consider the policy statements
contained in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines. We review for plain error,
see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and
find none. The record reflects that the district court adequately explained the
2 15-10420
within-Guidelines sentence and considered the applicable sentencing factors. See
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-10420