United States v. Iglesias

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 25, 2025
• Docket: 24-4886
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-4886 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:05-cr-00232-DMG-1 v. MEMORANDUM* FRANK IGLESIAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2025**

Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Frank Iglesias appeals pro se 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, and we affirm.

Contrary to Iglesias’s assertion, the district court applied the correct legal

* 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). standard and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of

supervised release was not in the “interest of justice” under the relevant 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d

817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the court sufficiently explained its decision.

See Emmett, 749 F.3d at 820-21.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-4886