Case ID: f-appx_609/html/0409-01.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. Aly Aziz CONTEH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10486.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 29, 2015.
    Vincent Q. Kirby, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Atmore Baggot, Atmore Baggot Attorney at Law, Apache Junction, AZ, 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

Aly Aziz Conteh appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Conteh contends that the district court procedurally erred by (1) violating Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3) by failing to resolve an alleged factual dispute concerning his previous contacts with police, (2) improperly considering his state prison disciplinary infractions, and (3) failing to explain adequately the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.2009), and find none. Assuming, without deciding, that Rule 32(i)(3) applies to revocation of supervised release proceedings, Conteh has failed to show that the disputed facts played any role in the district court’s sentencing decision. See United States v. Saeteurn, 504 F.3d 1175, 1181 (9th Cir.2007) (Rule 32(i)(3)(B) “is limited to factual disputes which affect the temporal term of the sentence the district court imposes”). Further, any consideration of Conteh’s state prison disciplinary infractions by the district court was not error. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (district court shall consider defendant’s history and characteristics at sentencing). The district court also sufficiently explained the above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

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