Narrative Opinion Summary
Robert Lee Mitchell appeals the sentence following the revocation of his supervised release. The court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and reviews the case for abuse of discretion concerning deviations from Chapter 7 policy statements. The appeal is affirmed. Mitchell argues that the district court abused its discretion by not considering the 6 to 12 month sentencing range suggested by the policy statements before imposing a longer sentence. He claims that the mandatory 12-month residential drug abuse treatment program condition effectively extended his 8-month imprisonment to 20 months. The court rejects this argument, clarifying that community confinement in a residential treatment program does not count as incarceration under the Guidelines. The ruling is affirmed, with the note that this disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Community Confinement vs. Incarcerationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court distinguishes between community confinement in a residential treatment program and incarceration, affecting the calculation of the sentence length.
Reasoning: The court rejects this argument, clarifying that community confinement in a residential treatment program does not count as incarceration under the Guidelines.
Jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court exercises its jurisdiction to review the sentence following the revocation of supervised release.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and reviews the case for abuse of discretion concerning deviations from Chapter 7 policy statements.
Non-Publication of Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's disposition is not suitable for publication and is restricted from being cited, except as allowed by specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The ruling is affirmed, with the note that this disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Review for Abuse of Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examines whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence longer than the suggested range in Chapter 7 policy statements.
Reasoning: Mitchell argues that the district court abused its discretion by not considering the 6 to 12 month sentencing range suggested by the policy statements before imposing a longer sentence.