United States v. Rudy

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: 25-4792
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-4792 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:20-cr-00111-JD-1 v. MEMORANDUM* MARK LLOYD RUDY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Donato, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 3, 2025**

Before: RAWLINSON, OWENS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Mark Lloyd Rudy appeals from the district court’s order denying his request

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

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

On remand from this court, the district court issued a written order

* 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). explaining that, though it had previously reduced Rudy’s supervision term by 15

months to reflect his strong rehabilitative efforts, no further reduction was

warranted. As the court stated, “there is no good reason to turn off this support

structure just a little over two months before it will end on its own accord on

December 19, 2025. The conditions have benefitted Rudy enormously, and they

provide substantial protection to the public from further criminal conduct by him.”

The district court adequately explained its decision to deny the motion and did not

abuse its broad discretion in concluding that early termination of supervised release

was unwarranted. See United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819-21 (9th Cir.

2014).

In light of this conclusion, we do not reach the government’s other

arguments.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-4792