United States v. Jones

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 25 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-7030 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:13-cr-00860-LEK-3 v. MEMORANDUM* OPHERRO JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 22, 2026**

Before: CANBY, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Opherro Jones appeals from the sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment and 12

months’ supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release.

Jones’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), stating that there are no non-frivolous arguments for appeal. Jones has filed

* 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). pro se supplemental briefs.

Our independent review of the record, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), discloses no non-frivolous arguments to be made on direct appeal.

Jones’s pro se contention that the district court erred by imposing a 12-

month term of supervised release is unavailing. Because the aggregate length of

Jones’s imprisonment for his three revocation sentences was 24 months, the court

was permitted to impose 12 months of supervision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h);

United States v. Knight, 580 F.3d 933, 938-40 (9th Cir. 2009). Moreover, Jones is

incorrect that the district court was not permitted to extend his new supervised

release term beyond September 21, 2026. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3), 3624(e);

Knight, 580 F.3d at 937-38; cf. United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 57 (2000)

(holding that supervised release commences upon release from imprisonment

because “[s]upervised release does not run while an individual remains in the

custody of the Bureau of Prisons.”). Finally, the 12-month term of supervision is

substantively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances and the § 3583(e)

factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

However, we remand the case to the district court with instructions to correct

the written judgment. At the revocation hearing, the court unconditionally waived

interest on restitution. Because the oral pronouncement of the sentence controls,

we remand solely for the district court to amend Special Condition 7 to make it

2 25-7030 consistent with the unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence. See United

States v. Hernandez, 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 2015).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

Within seven days, appellee must serve this disposition on appellant

individually and provide this court with proof of service.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct the judgment.

3 25-7030