United States of America v. Roy Paul Biondi

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court of Alaska, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROY PAUL BIONDI,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50227
D.C. No. 3:01-cr-02969-WQH-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 14, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON,
Senior District Judge. **
Appellant Roy Paul Biondi (Biondi) challenges as an unreasonable delay the
six years that elapsed between the district court’s issuance of an order to show
cause why he had not violated the terms of his supervised release and the
FILED
NOV 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
revocation hearing held upon his release from state custody. Biondi also argues
that the 12-month sentence the district court imposed was unreasonable.
1. The district court did not err by postponing the revocation hearing until
Biondi was released from state custody. See United States v. Garrett, 253 F.3d
443, 450 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that “once a defendant’s supervised release
term expires, a district court may, in accordance with § 3583(i), postpone the
federal adjudication of matters arising before the expiration of that term until after
the defendant is released from state custody”).
2. Biondi was not prejudiced by the postponement because there is no statutory
requirement that the government “writ a defendant out of state custody and bring
him before the federal district court for his revocation hearing. . . .” Garrett, 253
F.3d at 450. Likewise, the postponement did not cause Biondi to suffer “difficulty
in contesting the alleged facts constituting a violation of [his] release conditions;
hardship in finding and presenting favorable witnesses; or inability to produce
evidence of mitigating circumstances which might result in continued [supervised
release] despite the violation. . . .” United States v. Wickham, 618 F.2d 1307, 1310
(9th Cir. 1979).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
3. Contrary to Biondi’s argument, the district court provided an adequate
account of its sentencing considerations, rendering the sentence reasonable. See
United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1010 (9th Cir. 2010) (clarifying that “[a]
district court need not explain its reasons in detail where context and the record
make clear what reasoning underlies the judge’s conclusion”) (citation, alteration,
and internal quotation marks omitted).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --