United States of America v. Oscar Luna

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
OSCAR LUNA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-10092
D.C. No. 1:95-cr-05036-AWI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2018**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Luna 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, and we affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion for
* 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
DEC 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-10092
early termination of supervised release. See United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d
817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014). The court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
Luna’s stated need for unrestricted international travel in order to fulfill his
employment obligations did not support early termination. Contrary to Luna’s
contention, the district court applied the correct legal standard in determining that
early termination of supervised release was not warranted by Luna’s conduct and
the interest of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1); Emmett, 749 F.3d at 819. The
court did not base its decision on any erroneous facts, and properly relied on the
nature of Luna’s offense and his ongoing failure to accept responsibility for his
offense as reasons to continue supervision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B),
(a)(2)(C).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --