Narrative Opinion Summary
Michael Norman Katz appeals a 9-month prison sentence followed by 27 months of supervised release, resulting from the revocation of his supervised release. The court affirms the sentence, asserting jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3742 and 28 U.S.C. 1291. Katz argues that the district court incorrectly applied 18 U.S.C. 3583(h) when determining his sentence based on a pre-1994 offense. The appellate review is conducted de novo concerning the supervised release statute. The court finds that the sentence aligns with 18 U.S.C. 3583(e), and thus, there was no error in imposing the supervised release term. The court references relevant case law, including United States v. Lomayaoma and Johnson v. United States, to support its position that it is presumed the district court correctly applies the law. The decision is affirmed and noted as not appropriate for publication, limiting its citation by courts within the circuit per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of 18 U.S.C. 3583(h)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant challenged the application of 18 U.S.C. 3583(h) for a pre-1994 offense, but the court found no misapplication.
Reasoning: Katz argues that the district court incorrectly applied 18 U.S.C. 3583(h) when determining his sentence based on a pre-1994 offense.
Consistency with 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the sentence imposed was consistent with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3583(e), supporting the validity of the supervised release term.
Reasoning: The court finds that the sentence aligns with 18 U.S.C. 3583(e), and thus, there was no error in imposing the supervised release term.
De Novo Review of Supervised Release Statutesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court conducted a de novo review concerning the supervised release statute to evaluate the district court's application of the law.
Reasoning: The appellate review is conducted de novo concerning the supervised release statute.
Jurisdiction Under 18 U.S.C. 3742 and 28 U.S.C. 1291subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court asserts its jurisdiction to review and affirm the sentence imposed on the appellant.
Reasoning: The court affirms the sentence, asserting jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3742 and 28 U.S.C. 1291.
Non-Publication and Limitation on Citationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case is not appropriate for publication and is subject to citation limitations within the circuit, as per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The decision is affirmed and noted as not appropriate for publication, limiting its citation by courts within the circuit per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Presumed Correct Application of Law by District Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court presumes that the district court correctly applied the law, referencing relevant case law as supporting precedent.
Reasoning: The court references relevant case law, including United States v. Lomayaoma and Johnson v. United States, to support its position that it is presumed the district court correctly applies the law.