Case ID: f-appx_430/html/0576-02.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. Robert Richard EVANS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-50239.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed April 28, 2011.
    Mark Sterling Determan, Charles Anthony O’Reilly, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Karyn H. Bu-cur Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Richard Evans appeals from the sentence imposed on re-sentencing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Evans contends that, because the district court did not orally impose a term of supervised release at re-sentencing, this court should remand so that the district court can correct the written judgment to exclude supervised release from the written judgment. The record reflects that the district court did not address at re-sentencing those portions of the sentence that, like the three-year term of supervised release, were neither discussed nor disputed by the parties. See United States v. W.P.L., 635 F.3d 455, 456 n. 1 (9th Cir.2011) (explaining that, despite a variation between the oral and written sentencing pronouncements, there was no direct conflict between the two when viewed “in context”).

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