United States v. Brown

61 F. App'x 485
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 18, 2003·No. No. 02-10452; D.C. No. CR-00-00248-SMM·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM**

Darelle Lashawn Brown appeals the sentence imposed after revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3732. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s departure from the policy statement range set forth in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Review of the record shows that, prior to sentencing Brown, the district court considered the policy statement range for Brown’s violation set forth in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, and it complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3553 by stating its reasons for departing from this range. See Musa, 220 F.3d at 1101; United States v. Tadeo, 222 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Brown outside of the policy statement range set forth in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. See Tadeo, 222 F.3d at 625-26.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

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

United States v. Brown, 61 F. App'x 485 (9th Cir. 2003).

61 F. App'x 485 (United States v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Drago Carl Musa
220 F.3d 1096 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Juan Manuel Tadeo
222 F.3d 623 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)