United States v. 2020-03-11 | 19-10247 | USA V. RUSSELL MCGREGOR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RUSSELL DAVID McGREGOR, aka
Rusty,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-10247

D.C. No.
3:00-cr-00170-HDM-VPC-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Russell David McGregor appeals from the district court’s order denying his
motion for early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).
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

MAR 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-10247
early termination of supervised release. See United States v. Emmett, 749 F.3d
817, 819 (9th Cir. 2014). Contrary to McGregor’s contention, the district court
applied the correct legal standard when evaluating his motion. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(1); Emmett, 749 F.3d at 819. Moreover, the record reflects that the court
considered McGregor’s arguments in favor of early termination and sufficiently
explained its reasons for rejecting those arguments, including the nature of
McGregor’s offenses and his history on supervision. See Emmett, 749 F.3d at 820-
22. The court did not abuse its broad discretion in concluding that early
termination of supervised release was not in the interest of justice. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(1); Emmett, 749 F.3d at 819.
AFFIRMED.