Case ID: f-appx_220/html/0593-01.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. William BRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-50142.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 6, 2007 .
    Filed Feb. 8, 2007.
    Michael E. Lasater, Esq., David P. Cur-now, Esq., Roger W. Haines, Jr., Esq., USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gary P. Burcham, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: KOZINSKI and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE , District Judge.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court did not err in revoking appellant’s supervised release. The certified judgment of appellant’s conviction entered on his People v. West guilty plea, together with the state court’s finding of a factual basis for the plea, sufficiently established that appellant committed a crime in violation of the terms of his supervised release. See People v. West, 3 Cal.3d 595, 91 Cal.Rptr. 385, 477 P.2d 409 (1970); United States v. Verdusco, 330 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir.2003). Appellant’s argument that 18 U.S.C. § 3583 revocation proceedings are unconstitutional is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 545, 166 L.Ed.2d 403 (2006).

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