Case ID: f-appx_608/html/0526-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Joseph BONDS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-50487.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 26, 2015.
    Anne Kristina Perry, Assistant U.S., Peter Ko, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gary Paul Burcham, Burcham & Zug-man, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Johnny Joseph Bonds appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 20-month sentence imposed and a special condition of supervised release reimposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bonds contends that the district court procedurally erred by improperly considering the need to promote respect for law and the seriousness of the offense conduct. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006), and find none. The record reflects that the district court considered only proper 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors, including Bonds’s repeated breaches of the court’s trust. See Miqbel, 444 F.3d at 1182.

Bonds also contends that the district court erred by reimposing the special condition of supervised release that requires GPS monitoring because it is not reasonably related to the section 3583(d) factors and is a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary. We review the district court’s imposition of a supervised release condition for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 557 (9th Cir.2006). In light of Bonds’s criminal history and his repeated failures to comply with the terms of his supervision, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the condition to facilitate his compliance with the other conditions of supervised release. See id. at 557-58.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.