United States v. Daryl Marshall
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daryl Keith MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), Jay S. Bybee, Morgan Christen
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50426 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-cr-01821-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* DARYL KEITH MARSHALL, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2015** Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Daryl Keith Marshall appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the revocation of 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 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). Marshall contends that the district court erred by failing to provide him with an opportunity to be heard regarding whether his violation warranted revocation of his supervised release. Contrary to Marshall’s contention, the denial of the right of allocution is not a “structural error” warranting automatic reversal. See Boardman v. Estelle, 957 F.2d 1523, 1530 (9th Cir. 1992). Rather, we review for plain error, see United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 2008), and find none.
The record reflects that, in light of his multiple prior violations, the district court rejected Marshall’s request to be placed back on supervised release. Accordingly, Marshall has not shown a reasonable probability that, but for the alleged error, the district court would have determined that revocation was unwarranted. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2004).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50426