Case ID: f-appx_177/html/0547-01.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. Vernon FORD, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-10430.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2006.
    
    Filed April 10, 2006.
    
      Thomas J. Brady, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Rustam Barbee, Esq., Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vernon Ford appeals from the 36-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, United States v. Tadeo, 222 F.3d 623, 625 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Ford contends that the district court’s sentence was excessive and constituted an abuse of discretion. We are unpersuaded. When revoking supervised release, the distriet court has discretion to go outside the Chapter 7 policy statement’s suggested sentencing range, up to the statutory maximum listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). See United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.2000); see also United States v. George, 184 F.3d 1119, 1122-23 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.