Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lee MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-16
Citations: 133 F. App'x 377
Docket Number: No. 04-50379
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Lee MITCHELL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, CANBY and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 377–378

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Lee MITCHELL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-50379.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 2005.
Decided May 16, 2005.
Bruce Searby, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Tanaka, Esq., FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, CANBY and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Robert Lee Mitchell appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We review for abuse of discretion a deviation from the Chapter 7 policy statements, see United States v. Garcia, 323 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
Mitchell .contends the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the 6 to 12 month range suggested by the Chapter 7 policy statements before imposing a sentence exceeding that range. His contention is premised upon his assertion that the mandatory 12-month residential drug abuse treatment program included as a condition of his supervised release effectively increased his 8-month sentence of imprisonment to a 20-month sentence. Because community confinement in a residential treatment program does not constitute incarceration under the Guidelines, see United States v. Latimer, 991 F.2d 1509, 1511-14 (9th Cir.1993), we reject this contention.
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.