Court Opinion

ID: 9910895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 20:00:39.98233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:12.782716
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-650
                                                D.C. No. 1:18-cr-00059-DKW-RT-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
PETER CHRISTOPHER,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Hawaii
                   Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before:      WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Peter Christopher appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his

motion for early termination of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Emmett,

749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Christopher contends that early termination of his supervised release is

warranted because he has performed well on supervision and has successfully

transitioned back into the community. He contends that the district court applied

the wrong legal standard, ignored relevant facts, and failed to explain adequately

its decision. The record does not support these claims. The court’s order makes

clear that it fully considered Christopher’s circumstances and denied early

termination in light of the “interests of justice” and “nature and circumstances of

the offense,” which are permissible considerations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e);

Emmett, 749 F.3d at 819. Contrary to Christopher’s argument, the court did not

deny early termination to punish him; rather, its reference to punishment was in

connection with its discussion of the original sentence. Moreover, the court

adequately explained its decision to deny Christopher’s motion. See Emmett, 749

F.3d at 820-21. On this record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

“broad discretion” by denying Christopher’s request for early termination. See id.

at 819.

      AFFIRMED.

                                        2                                     23-650