Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
09-30432•United States of America v. Isaiah Thomas Follet
09-30432Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit13.12.2010
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISAIAH THOMAS FOLLET,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-30432
D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00024-RFC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Richard F. Cebull, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 6, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Isaiah Thomas Follett appeals from the 60-month sentence and lifetime term
of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for failure to
register as a sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2250(a). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
09-30432 2
Follett contends that the district court erred by imposing a sentence above
the Guidelines range after simultaneously applying an upward departure based on
the inadequacy of his criminal history category, and imposing an upward variance
pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record reflects that the
district court did not procedurally err and that the sentence is substantively
reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-51 (2007); see also United
States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); United States v.
Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2006).
Follett also contends that the district court’s imposition of a lifetime term of
supervised release was unreasonable. We conclude that the district court was
within its discretion to find that a lifetime term of supervised release was necessary
to comply with the statutory goals of sentencing. See United States v. Daniels, 541
F.3d 915, 921-24 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.