Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Kenly LACY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-20
Citations: 64 F. App'x 107
Docket Number: No. 02-30318
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Kenly LACY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 64
Pages: 107–107

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Kenly LACY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-30318.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2003.
Decided May 20, 2003.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ronald Kenly Lacy appeals the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review dé novo the district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines and review for an abuse of discretion its consideration of the non-binding policy statements. See United States v. George, 184 F.3d 1119, 1120 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.
Lacy contends that the district court failed adequately to consider the nature and circumstances of Lacy's violation of the terms of his supervised release, and his history and characteristics, before sentencing him to the statutory maximum. This contention is unpersuasive because the record contains evidence that the district court considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See id at 1119.
Lacy also argues that the district court failed to provide him with sufficient notice of its intention to depart upward from the sentencing range in Chapter Seven. However, Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines contains only non-binding policy statements. See id. ("a district court must consider but is not bound by the Chapter Seven policy statements."). Therefore, such notice is not required. Furthermore, Lacy's counsel had a copy of the probation department's recommendation that Lacy be sentenced to the statutory maximum before the revocation hearing.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lacy's request for a continuance of the revocation hearing because Lacy failed to show that the refusal resulted in prejudice to his defense. See United States v. Gonzalez-Sandoval, 894 F.2d 1043, 1051 (9th Cir.1990) (internal quotation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.