Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding.
Before SCHROEDER, TROTT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ronald S. Arnold appeals the district court's probation revocation order and four-month sentence of imprisonment. We review the district court's decision to revoke probation for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Shampang, 987 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir.1993). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Arnold contends that he was denied due process and a fair revocation proceeding because the probation officer harassed him and the district court prejudged the factual issues and demonstrated hostility toward Arnold and his counsel. This contention lacks merit.
There is nothing in the record demonstrating that Arnold was harassed by his probation officer. See id. at 1443 (noting that probation officers have wide discretion in determining whether to seek revocation). There is also nothing in the record to support Arnold's claim that the district court displayed hostility toward Arnold or his counsel or prejudged the factual issues. See United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 537 (9th Cir.1988) (noting that a new trial is required only if the record shows actual bias or leaves impression of advocacy or partiality by district court judge).
Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Arnold's probation. See Shampang, 987 F.2d at 1441.
AFFIRMED.