United States v. Gray

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 29, 2024
• Docket: 23-1255
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-1255 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:17-cr-00054-HDM-CLB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ANTHONY CHARLES GRAY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Anthony Charles Gray appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion for early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion,

see United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Gray contends that the district court failed to explain its decision or address

Gray’s argument that his good performance on supervision justified early

termination of supervised release. The record reflects that the district court

considered Gray’s argument and sufficiently explained its determination that early

termination of supervision was nonetheless unwarranted in light of the nature of

Gray’s offense and his serious, violent criminal history. See Emmett, 749 F.3d at

820-22. The court did not abuse its broad discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1);

Emmett, 749 F.3d at 819.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-1255