United States v. Robert Evans
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Richard EVANS, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- M. James Lorenz (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Pamela A. Rymer (author), Thomas, Richard A. Paez
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
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 28 2011
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. 10-50239 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:03-cr-01110-MJL v. MEMORANDUM * ROBERT RICHARD EVANS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 20, 2011 ** Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Robert Richard Evans appeals from the sentence imposed on re-sentencing.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Evans contends that, because the district court did not orally impose a term of supervised release at re-sentencing, this court should remand so that the district * 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). court can correct the written judgment to exclude supervised release from the written judgment. The record reflects that the district court did not address at re- sentencing those portions of the sentence that, like the three-year term of supervised release, were neither discussed nor disputed by the parties. See United States vs. W.P.L., No. 10-30202, 2011 Westlaw 855859 at *1 n.1 (9th Cir. March 30, 2011) (explaining that, despite a variation between the oral and written sentencing pronouncements, there was no direct conflict between the two when viewed “in context”).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50239