United States of America v. Jose Uribe

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSE URIBE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50282
D.C. No. 8:95-cr-00077-JLS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Uribe appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for early
termination of his supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Uribe contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his
* 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).
FILED
AUG 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-50282
motion by relying on an improper factor, overemphasizing the nature of Uribe’s
offense conduct, and failing to explain its decision adequately. Contrary to Uribe’s
contention, the district court identified the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
applied the correct legal standard, and did not abuse its broad discretion in
concluding that early termination of supervised release was not in the interest of
justice in light of the nature and circumstances of Uribe’s offense conduct. See 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d 817, 819-20 (9th Cir.
2014). In addition, the district court’s explanation was sufficient to permit
meaningful appellate review. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th
Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --