United States v. Mitchell
This text of 133 F. App'x 377 (United States v. Mitchell) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Robert Lee Mitchell appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We review for abuse of discretion a deviation from the Chapter 7 policy statements, see United States v. Garcia, 323 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
Mitchell .contends the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the 6 to 12 month range suggested by the Chapter 7 policy statements before imposing a sentence exceeding that range. His contention is premised upon his assertion that the mandatory 12-month residential drug abuse treatment program included as a condition of his supervised release effectively increased his 8-month sentence of imprisonment to a 20-month sentence. Because community confinement in a residential treatment program does not constitute incarceration under the Guidelines, see United States v. Latimer, 991 F.2d 1509, 1511-14 (9th Cir.1993), we reject this contention.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
133 F. App'x 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mitchell-ca9-2005.