Court Opinion

ID: 9408720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 16:00:52.399767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:45.697074
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 13 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       Nos. 22-50052
                                                     22-50053
                Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                D.C. Nos.
 v.                                             2:02-cr-00097-CAS-1
                                                2:19-cr-00414-CAS-1
DEMETRIUS ALEXANDER SMITH III,
                                                MEMORANDUM*
                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                   Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      In these consolidated appeals, Demetrius Alexander Smith III appeals from

the district court’s judgment and challenges the 36-month term of supervised

release imposed upon the second revocation of his supervised release. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 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).
      Smith contends that the supervised release term is substantively

unreasonable because it will not serve the statutory purpose of facilitating his

transition back to the community. The district court did not abuse its discretion.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The record reflects that the

district court wanted to provide a “safety net” for Smith given his history of mental

illness and violence. The 36-month term of supervised release is substantively

reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583 factors and the totality of the

circumstances, including the need to rehabilitate Smith and protect the public. See

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Hurt, 345 F.3d 1033, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003)

(“A violation of the conditions of supervised release does not obviate the need for

further supervision, but rather confirms the judgment that supervision was

necessary.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                           22-50052 & 22-50053