Case ID: f-appx_244/html/0102-01.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. Mark Edwin MAGRUDER, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-50174.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2007 .
    Filed June 14, 2007.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., Bruce Searby, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Law Offices of Richard D. Rome, Van Nuys, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mark Edwin Magruder appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Magruder contends that the 21-month term of supervised release is too long. We disagree, and we conclude that this term is reasonable in light of the relevant factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c), (h); United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Hurt, 345 F.3d 1033,1035-36 (9th Cir.2003).

Magruder also contends that the district court erred by ordering him to be placed in a residential drug treatment program as a condition of supervised release. We disagree and hold that this condition of supervised release is reasonably related to the relevant § 3553(a) factors, consistent with the policy statement contained in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(4), and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary for the purposes set forth in the relevant parts of § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(9); United States v. Ross, 476 F.3d 719, 721 (9th Cir.2007).

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