Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Thomas SCHRAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-03
Citations: 284 F. App'x 483
Docket Number: No. 08-30017
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Thomas SCHRAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 284
Pages: 483–484

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Thomas SCHRAM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30017.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2008.
Filed July 3, 2008.
Douglas W. Fong, USME—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Medford, OR, Stephen F. Peifer, USPO—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Tonia L. Moro, FPDOR—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Medford, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gerald Thomas Schram appeals from the sentence imposed following the revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Schram contends that the district court's imposition of an eight-month sentence for a third revocation of supervised release violates the terms of the plea agreement he entered in 1991, because he never should have been placed on supervised release following either of the first two revocations. Schram's contention fails because the district court permissibly imposed a term of supervised release following each of the first two revocations, thus the district court did not plainly err when it revoked the instant term of supervised release and imposed a custodial sentence. See Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 713, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.