Case ID: f-appx_410/html/0026-01.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. Isaiah Thomas FOLLET, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30432.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.
    
    Filed Dec. 13, 2010.
    Marcia Kay Hurd, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kelly John Varnes, Hendrickson Ever-son Noennig & Woodward, PC, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Isaiah Thomas Follet appeals from the 60-month sentence and lifetime term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Follet contends that the district court erred by imposing a sentence above the Guidelines range after simultaneously applying an upward departure based on the inadequacy of his criminal history category, and imposing an upward variance pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err and that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); see also United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc); United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 988-89 (9th Cir.2006).

Follet also contends that the district court’s imposition of a lifetime term of supervised release was unreasonable. We conclude that the district court was within its discretion to find that a lifetime term of supervised release was necessary to comply with the statutory goals of sentencing. See United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 921-24 (9th Cir.2008).

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