United States v. Kenyon Devers

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10196
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:05-cr-00058-JCM-GWF-1
v.
KENYON DEVERS, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 8, 2020**
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Kenyon Devers appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion
for early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) and his
motion for reconsideration. 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).
Devers contends that the district court improperly denied termination on the
basis of its incorrect belief that his supervised release had been revoked in 2012.
However, the record of Devers’s 2012 hearing shows that his supervised release
was revoked on that occasion. Moreover, contrary to Devers’s claim, the district
court’s shorthand description of his 2012 violation as a “sex offense” was not
erroneous. The record also does not support Devers’s contention that the court
placed undue weight on his 2012 revocation. Rather, the record shows that the
district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors, including
Devers’s history and characteristics. The court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that early termination of supervised release was not in the interest of
justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819-
20 (9th Cir. 2014).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-10196