Erica White v. United States Parole Commission

* 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ERICA WHITE,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE
COMMISSION,
Respondent.
No. 09-72269
BOP No. 05025-707
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Bureau of Prisons
Submitted March 4, 2010 **
Pasadena, California
Before: RYMER, WARDLAW and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Erica White challenges a sentence imposed by the United States Parole
Commission (“USPC”) that she serve a two year term of supervised release, as a
result of her conviction in Japan for illegally importing marijuana into the country.
FILED
MAR 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history
of this case, we need not recount it here.
The panel first reviews a sentencing order for “significant procedural error,”
then it reviews “the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.” United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). “It would be procedural error
for [the USPC] to fail to calculate—or to calculate incorrectly—the Guidelines
range; . . . to fail to consider the § 3553(a) factors; . . . or to fail adequately to
explain the sentence selected . . . .” Id. The panel looks at the “totality of the
circumstances” to determine whether a sentence is substantively unreasonable. Id.
The standard of review for substantive reasonableness is abuse of discretion. Id.
The USPC did not commit significant procedural error. The USPC properly
determined the guideline range for White’s term of supervised release to be two to
three years. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.2(a). Further, the
USPC sufficiently explained the basis for the sentence through its consideration of
the applicable supervised release sentencing guideline range, the factors listed in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and the Post Sentence Report.
Reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the USPC did not abuse its
discretion by sentencing White to a two year term of supervised release. The
sentence imposed was within the proper guideline range. Although we do not
presume that a sentence which falls within the guideline range is reasonable, we

-- 2 of 3 --

note “that a Guidelines sentence will usually be reasonable.” Carty, 520 F.3d at
994 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The USPC noted its
understanding that the guidelines were advisory. In making its determination, the
USPC expressly stated that it considered the guidelines, the § 3553(a) factors, and
the Post Sentence Report (which explicitly considered those factors). In particular,
the USPC explained that, by imposing this term of supervised release, it sought to
(1) assist White in obtaining an approved release plan (given her personal
circumstances), and (2) help her address her medical needs.
Therefore, the sentence imposed by the USPC is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --