From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ballard

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 21, 2011
462 F. App'x 715 (9th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 10-10589 D.C. No. 2:06-CR-00283-JCC

12-21-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN MARVIN BALLARD, Defendant - Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

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).


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding


Submitted December 19, 2011**

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

John Marvin Ballard appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed on remand for resentencing following his jury-trial conviction for scheming to conceal a material fact, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Contrary to the government's contention, Ballard's release from custody on October 14, 2010, does not render this appeal moot because he remains on supervised release. See United States v. Verdin, 243 F.3d 1174, 1178 (9th Cir. 2001) (appeal not moot because "success for [Ballard] could alter the supervised release portion of his sentence") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Ballard contends that the district court failed to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), which requires the court to state in open court its reasons for imposing a particular sentence. Because Ballard did not object to the court's statement of reasons at sentencing, this contention is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006). Ballard has not demonstrated the denial of his substantial rights, given the district court's lengthy explanation for the sentence in its written order. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993).

Ballard also contends that his statutory maximum sentence is substantively unreasonable. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, in particular the need to protect the public. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Ballard

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 21, 2011
462 F. App'x 715 (9th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Ballard

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHN MARVIN BALLARD…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 21, 2011

Citations

462 F. App'x 715 (9th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

United States v. Ballard

By memorandum decision issued December 21, 2011, and mandate issued January 12, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court…

United States v. Castanon

Specifically, if defendant is successful "in decreasing his total offense level, he could be resentenced to a…