United States of America v. Astarte Davis-Rice

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
ASTARTE DAVIS-RICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10277
D.C. No. 4:02-cr-40212-DLJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
D. Lowell Jensen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Astarte Davis-Rice appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her
petition for early termination of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
APR 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-10277 2
Davis-Rice contends that the district court erred by determining that early
termination of supervised release was unwarranted. We disagree. The district
court properly acted within its discretion by relying upon the recommendation of
the Probation Officer that Davis-Rice’s conduct during supervised release was not
so exceptionally good as to warrant early termination. See United States v. Miller,
205 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 557
(9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that a district court has “significant discretion” in its
decisions concerning supervised release).
We decline to consider facts and arguments raised by Davis-Rice for the first
time on appeal. See United States v. Cade, 236 F.3d 463, 467 (9th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --