Case ID: f-appx_591/html/0595-02.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. Michael W. RYAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-30123.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Jan. 29, 2015.
    Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Victoria L. Francis, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael W. Ryan, Billings, MT, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael W. Ryan appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motion to terminate early his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ryan contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to terminate his supervised release by failing to use the correct legal standard and by improperly relying on the allegedly harsh sentence he received for the underlying offense. Contrary to Ryan’s contention, the district court properly identified the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) factors, considered Ryan’s arguments, and applied the correct legal standard in determining that. early termination of supervised release was not warranted by his conduct and the interest of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir.2014).

Ryan also alleges that the district court improperly denied early termination of supervised release based on out-of-court communications with the sentencing judge. Ryan’s allegation has no support in the record.

Ryan’s motion to enlarge the record on appeal, or, in the álternative, for judicial notice is DENIED.

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