Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0914-01.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. Kenneth J. SMITH, a.k.a. K. J. Smith, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-30063
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 21, 2017
    . Michelle Kerin, Kelly A. Zusraan, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Helen Lenore Cooper, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Ruben L. Iniguez, FPDOR — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. :
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kenneth-J. Smith appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for early termination of probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Smith contends that the district court procedurally erred in denying his motion for early termination of probation without providing an adequate explanation for its rejection of his arguments. We review for plain error, see United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 800 (9th Cir. 2012), and conclude that there is none. The district court held a hearing on Smith’s motion. The record reflects that it considered all of the parties’ arguments, including Smith’s arguments regarding his post-sentencing achievements. The court denied Smith’s motion because, despite his accomplishments while on probation, Smith had not yet accomplished the original goals of his sentence, including paying restitution. The explanation given was enough to “permit meaningful appellate review,” United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). A more thorough explanation of why the court rejected each of Smith’s arguments was not required. See United States v. Sandoval-Orellana, 714 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 2013).

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