gno.law

United States v. McFarland

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 24-4850 · 2026-08-31 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
John A. Houston (district judge)
Outcome
affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area
criminal

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 31 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-4850 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:17-cr-00270-JAH-8 v. MEMORANDUM* DEMETRIUS MONTRE MCFARLAND, AKA Mechii Ruu, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2026** Before: SILVERMAN, N.R. SMITH, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Demetrius Montre McFarland appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* 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). McFarland contends the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his purportedly lesser role in the violation offense, his profession of innocence in the underlying offense, and his rehabilitative intentions. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above- Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the relevant 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including McFarland’s serious breach of the court’s trust and poor performance on supervised release. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-4850