United States v. Astarte Davis-rice

377 F. App'x 606
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 21, 2010
Docket09-10277
StatusUnpublished

This text of 377 F. App'x 606 (United States v. Astarte Davis-rice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Astarte Davis-rice, 377 F. App'x 606 (9th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Astarte Davis-Rice appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her petition for early termination of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Davis-Rice contends that the district court erred by determining that early termination of supervised release was unwarranted. We disagree. The district court properly acted within its discretion by relying upon the recommendation of the Probation Officer that Davis-Rice’s conduct during supervised release was not so exceptionally good as to warrant early termination. See United States v. Miller, 205 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 557 (9th Cir.2006) (explaining that a district court has “significant discretion” in its decisions concerning supervised release).

We decline to consider facts and arguments raised by Dávis-Rice for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Cade, 236 F.3d 463, 467 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. James A. Miller
205 F.3d 1098 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Douglas Keith Cade
236 F.3d 463 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Matthew Henry Weber
451 F.3d 552 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
377 F. App'x 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-astarte-davis-rice-ca9-2010.