United States v. Anthony Swanegan
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony D. SWANEGAN, A.K.A. Anthony Swanegan, A.K.A. Anthony Demetri Swanegan, A.K.A. Anthony Demitus Swanegan, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Alfred T. Goodwin (author), William T. Wallace, Mary M. McKeown
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 30 2011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. 11-50124 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-07053-IEG v. MEMORANDUM * ANTHONY D. SWANEGAN, a.k.a. Anthony Swanegan, a.k.a. Anthony Demetri Swanegan, a.k.a. Anthony Demitus Swanegan, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted December 19, 2011 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Anthony D. Swanegan appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed * 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). following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Swanegan contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explicitly calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range, and by improperly relying on punishment during sentencing. Swanegan has not shown that the district court’s failure to expressly calculate the Guidelines range affected his substantial rights, particularly where the probation officer correctly calculated the Guidelines range and the district court provided sufficient reasons for the sentence. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, taken in context, the district court’s reference to “punishment” properly concerned sanctions for Swanegan’s supervised release violations, not for the underlying state crimes. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-50124