United States v. Steven Birdsbill

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 28, 2010
Docket10-30048
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Steven Birdsbill (United States v. Steven Birdsbill) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Steven Birdsbill, (9th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 28 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30048

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00113-SEH

v. MEMORANDUM * S. T. B.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 19, 2010 **

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Appellant, a juvenile, appeals from the sentence imposed following his true-

plea to an act of juvenile delinquency, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5031, that

constituted burglary, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a), (b). Appellant was

sentenced to official detention for 16 months and to supervision following his

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). release from official detention until his nineteenth birthday. We have jurisdiction

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

Appellant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by

failing to consider the least restrictive environment and the rehabilitative needs of

the appellant. See United States v. Juvenile, 347 F.3d 778, 787 (9th Cir. 2003).

The district court’s determination that a period of detention was necessary to

accomplish rehabilitation was not an abuse of discretion. Nor did the district court

abuse its discretion by selecting a 16-month term, based on its determination that

this term was necessary in order for appellant to participate in and complete the

necessary rehabilitative programming.

Appellant’s request that we remand to a different district court judge is

denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

2 10-30048

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Juvenile
347 F.3d 778 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Steven Birdsbill, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-steven-birdsbill-ca9-2010.