Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl John DEPASTINO, a.k.a. Darryl J. De Pastino, a.k.a. Darryl Depastino, a.k.a. David A. Depastino, a.k.a. David Allen Depastino, a.k.a. Darryl R. Johnson, a.k.a. Edward Robert Johnson, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-14
Citations: 695 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 16-50478
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl John DEPASTINO, a.k.a. Darryl J. De Pastino, a.k.a. Darryl Depastino, a.k.a. David A. Depastino, a.k.a. David Allen Depastino, a.k.a. Darryl R. Johnson, a.k.a. Edward Robert Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl John DEPASTINO, a.k.a. Darryl J. De Pastino, a.k.a. Darryl Depastino, a.k.a. David A. Depastino, a.k.a. David Allen Depastino, a.k.a. Darryl R. Johnson, a.k.a. Edward Robert Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50478
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 14, 2017
L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Bryant Y, Yang, Esquire, Attorney, DOJ— Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Brianna Fuller Mircheff, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, 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
Darryl John Depastino appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Depastino contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on unsupported assumptions regarding his methadone usage and its impact on his ability to participate in a residential drug treatment program. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there was none. Contrary to Depastino's contention, the court's factual findings are supported by the record. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1167 (9th Cir. 2010) ("A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.