Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jasmin JOHNSTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-05
Citations: 470 F. App'x 667
Docket Number: No. 11-10450
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jasmin JOHNSTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 667–667

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jasmin JOHNSTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10450.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed March 5, 2012.
Camil Skipper, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Paul Balazs, Law Offices of John P. Balazs, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jasmin Johnston appeals from the 24-month sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Johnston contends that the district court's revocation sentence exceeded the term that she reasonably believed was permissible under the plea agreement. This contention lacks merit as the plea agreement accurately summarized the district court's sentencing authority for violations of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Knight, 580 F.3d 933, 937-38 (9th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir.2008) ("To decide whether a plea agreement has been breached, this court considers what the defendant reasonably understood when he pled guilty.")
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.