Case ID: f-appx_656/html/0344-01.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. Susan LAFORGE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30240
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 02, 2016
    Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Colin Michael Rubich, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Steven C. Babcock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana (Billings), Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Susan Laforge appeals from the 6-month sentence and 30-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release, as well as the district court’s order denying her pro se motion to revise her term of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Laforge argues that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. Laforge’s notice of appeal was filed over four months after the entry of judgment. Her appeal of her sentence is, therefore, untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). Because the government has properly objected to the untimeliness, we dismiss Laforge’s appeal of her sentence. See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 942 (9th Cir. 2007).

Laforge’s pro se notice of appeal reflects that she is also challenging the district court’s denial of her motion to revise her term of supervised release. Laforge’s appeal from that denial is timely, but lacks merit. As the district court stated, it had no authority to terminate Laforge’s term of supervised release at the time she filed her motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) (a district court may terminate a term of supervised release but only “after the expiration of one year of supervised release”).

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.