Case ID: f-appx_377/html/0606-02.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. Astarte DAYIS-RICE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10277.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 21, 2010.
    Stephen G. Corrigan, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Astarte Davis-Rice, Point Arena, CA, pro se.
    Before: RYMER, MCKEOWN, 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

Astarte Davis-Rice appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her petition for early termination of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Davis-Rice contends that the district court erred by determining that early termination of supervised release was unwarranted. We disagree. The district court properly acted within its discretion by relying upon the recommendation of the Probation Officer that Davis-Rice’s conduct during supervised release was not so exceptionally good as to warrant early termination. See United States v. Miller, 205 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 557 (9th Cir.2006) (explaining that a district court has “significant discretion” in its decisions concerning supervised release).

We decline to consider facts and arguments raised by Dávis-Rice for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Cade, 236 F.3d 463, 467 (9th Cir.2000).

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