Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant challenges the district court's decision to revoke his supervised release and impose an 18-month sentence through two consecutive 9-month prison terms. The appellate court, exercising its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, affirms the district court's ruling. The appellant's primary contention is that his sentence is erroneous, as it exceeds the original one-year term of supervised release. However, the court finds the sentence appropriate within the context of the Sentencing Guidelines and below the statutory maximum allowed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The court also supports the imposition of consecutive sentences, citing the precedent established in United States v. Jackson. While upholding the sentence, the appellate court identifies a clerical error in the judgment, which misidentifies the statute cited in Count 2 of the indictment. It mandates a correction to reflect the proper statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1), instead of 18 U.S.C. § 1521(c)(1). The case is remanded solely for this correction. The judgment is not designated for publication and lacks precedential value pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consecutive Sentences in Supervised Release Violationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upholds the imposition of consecutive sentences, following the precedent set in United States v. Jackson.
Reasoning: The court also upholds the district court's decision to impose consecutive sentences, referencing precedent in United States v. Jackson.
Correction of Clerical Errors in Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court identifies and mandates the correction of a clerical error in the judgment, requiring the citation of the correct statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1), instead of 18 U.S.C. § 1521(c)(1).
Reasoning: Additionally, while affirming the judgment, the appellate court identifies a clerical error in the original judgment, which inaccurately cites 18 U.S.C. § 1521(c)(1) instead of the correct statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1), as charged in Count 2 of the indictment.
Jurisdiction of the Appellate Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court has jurisdiction over the appeal of the sentence revocation under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms the district court's decision.
Sentencing Guidelines and Statutory Maximumsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court finds the imposition of two consecutive 9-month terms appropriate as it falls within the Guidelines range and is below the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
Reasoning: The court finds this argument unpersuasive, noting that the sentence falls within the recommended Guidelines range and is below the statutory maximum per 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).