Court Opinion

ID: 9946624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 22:00:48.224629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:18.785912
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 29 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-1255
                                                D.C. No.
             Plaintiff - Appellee,              3:17-cr-00054-HDM-CLB-1
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ANTHONY CHARLES GRAY,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                  Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Anthony Charles Gray appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion for early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion,

see United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014), 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).
      Gray contends that the district court failed to explain its decision or address

Gray’s argument that his good performance on supervision justified early

termination of supervised release. The record reflects that the district court

considered Gray’s argument and sufficiently explained its determination that early

termination of supervision was nonetheless unwarranted in light of the nature of

Gray’s offense and his serious, violent criminal history. See Emmett, 749 F.3d at

820-22. The court did not abuse its broad discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1);

Emmett, 749 F.3d at 819.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                   23-1255